The Supreme Court at the outset noted that there was no dispute that the appellants lost their land and were deprived of their right, title or interest over the land utilised.
“The appellants are farmers and the land utilized is agricultural land. It was part of their livelihood. Depriving them of their part of their livelihood and also of their property without authority of law would be violative of Article 21 and Article 300A of the Constitution,” the Court said.
Article 300A, even if not a fundamental right is a constitutional one, and the High Court had erred in shifting the burden to the appellants to prove their lack of voluntary surrender, the Bench observed.
Taking note of the several representations made, the Supreme Court also ruled that it would be incorrect to say that there was ‘substantial delay on part of the appellants in agitating for their rights’.
Noting that there was nothing on record to show voluntary surrender, the top court stressed that the absence of a compensation scheme as was relied on by the Division Bench, is immaterial.
On the Division Bench saying the farmers in question had sought compensation from the wrong authorities, the apex court opined that such a view was too technical.
“The Division Bench also proceeded to note that the appellants were keen on changing their stand by initially claiming from the State and then from the Panchayat. This reasoning is also not tenable. The appellants are farmers. They cannot be treated as the persons conversant with intricacies of law. The Division Bench committed an error in commenting against the appellants and drawing an adverse inference. It took a view too technical, to deprive the appellants of their right to compensation.“
Given the mandate of Article 300A, depriving the appellants of compensation is in violation of the Constitution, the Court observed.
“Construction/widening of road no doubt would be a public purpose but there being no justification for not paying compensation the action of the respondents would be arbitrary, unreasonable and clearly violative of Article 300-A of the Constitution,” the Court said.
Therefore, the appeals were allowed.
Source: Barandbench
