Supreme Court Upholds Property Rights: Delay Cannot Nullify Landowners’ Legitimate Claims
Last Updated on December 18, 2024 by Amit Patra
In a landmark judgment, the Supreme Court has tried to reassure the sanctity of property rights. The Supreme Court has sent a loud message on constitutional protection to individual land ownership beyond the bureaucratic delays and procedural complexities.
The case involved two pieces of land in Alwar (Rajasthan) that were acquired by the UIT under the Rajasthan Urban Improvement Act. Despite the delay of 21 years in filing the challenge to the acquisition proceedings, the Court went into minute details on the validity of the land acquisition process, opting for substantive justice over technical limitations.
A bench comprising Justices JB Pardiwala and Manoj Misra held that the right to property cannot be taken away so nonchalantly because of the delay in litigation. The Court’s nuanced approach brought out an essential constitutionalism principle therein: Article 300A accords the right to property as an inherent protection against arbitrary state action.
The judgment scrutinized multiple procedural irregularities in the land acquisition process. Key issues included improper service of notices, delayed compensation payments, and violations of mandatory legal timelines. The Court found significant breaches in the acquisition proceedings, particularly regarding individual landowner notifications and compensation disbursement.
For the Nangli Kota lands, the Court observed that despite procedural irregularities, the landowners’ participation suggested constructive notice. However, for the Moongaska lands, the lack of proper individual notices rendered the entire acquisition process invalid.
Particularly striking was the Court’s observation about compensation delays. Despite taking possession in 1980, the UIT deposited compensation only in 1997—a delay the Court explicitly condemned as a violation of constitutional property rights.
The judgment upholds an even more fundamental legal principle: procedural delays, though important, cannot override fundamental rights. The Court balanced the need for legal finality with the imperative to redress possible injustices and thus set a precedent protective of individual property owners from arbitrary state actions.
In confirming the judgment of the Rajasthan High Court, the Supreme Court sent a forceful message that the right to property is sacrosanct. It is a strong statement that, beyond the letter and spirit, constitutional protections go further in ensuring individual rights in the face of a juggernaut of bureaucratic machinery.
This landmark decision underscores the judiciary’s role in safeguarding citizens’ fundamental rights, particularly in land acquisition proceedings where power dynamics can often disadvantage individual landowners.
