State Can't Trample Upon Rights Of Citizens In Rural Areas Merely Because They Lack Literacy Or Means To Approach Court: Bombay HC

The Bombay High Court on Friday said that in a civilised society there is no place for discrimination in the application of law and a citizen cannot be deprived of his or her rights just because s/he did not approach the courts or the authorities in time.

A division bench of Justices Girish Kulkarni and Somasekhar Sundaresan directed the Maharashtra government to pay the appropriate amount to some families in Kolhapur district, whose lands were acquired way back in September 1990 for the Dudhganga Irrigation Project.

"In a society governed by the rule of law, there can be no discrimination in the application of law to persons who are similarly placed. In this situation, there cannot be different standards, yardsticks and methods in the application of law, to persons of limited means, who are not literate or who are not well versed of their legitimate legal and constitutional rights or on a consideration that they belong to rural areas. Likes should be treated alike," the bench observed.

The judges further underscored that this is a constitutional guarantee of equality before the law and equal protection of the laws in a welfare state and that it is the solemn duty and responsibility of the State to uniformly apply the law, as also take corrective actions when it is noticed that the State's actions are in breach of law and the constitutional rights.

"Any breach of such fundamental mandates has no place in a civilised society. We also cannot fathom that in a civilised society, and more particularly, when the rights are governed by the Rule of Law, in a situation where continuous wrong is being caused to a person who is guaranteed such rights, these rights could be permitted to be defeated or rendered extinct, merely for the reason that there was a delay on the part of such person to approach the Court," the judges held.

In the present context, the judges explained that if such a proposition is accepted, and more so in a country like ours where in regard to our brother and sister citizens hailing from the rural area, neither there is legal literacy nor the means to approach the Court.

"The law cannot be applied in such manner to mean that their rights would be regarded as dead rights," the bench ruled. 

The bench was dealing with a bunch of petitions filed by few families, whose lands were part of a mass land acquisition for the Dudhganga Irrigation Project. The petitioner families, voluntarily handed over their lands in September 1990 and the same was done by way of an agreement and yet the land acquisition award was not published.

"The reason appears to be that the petitioner hailing from a rural area was certainly not a person well versed with her legal rights, that her land could only be taken away or her ownership divested only by following due process of law, and on payment of compensation. The petitioner appears to have bowed down before the might of the State Officers and handed over the possession of her land, without an award much less a farthing under any award," the bench recorded. 

The petitioners' approached the authorities in 2021 seeking compensation as per market valuation, however, their plea was rejected on the ground of 'unexplained' delay of more than 32 years in seeking compensation. The petitioners' however, stated that they were unaware of their legal rights and thus petitioned the authorities and the courts after such a delay. 

Accepting the contention of the petitioners', the judge said, "We may observe that the sad reality can never be overlooked that every person in such situation may not be so fortunate, in the first place to be informed of the legal rights, then to receive legal advice and thereafter to knock the doors of the Court. There may not even be the means/resources to do so. It is for such reason that the State officers posted on such duties are under an onerous obligation to adhere to the lawful procedure and protect the rights of such citizens."

This, the bench said, is a "constitutional duty" and thus, the respondent's contention of such rights to be dead rights would be a proposition too far-fetched.

"The Court cannot be oblivious to the basic constitutional responsibility and obligation on the State, when it intends to exercise the powers of eminent domain. Even in the circumstances of voluntary surrender of land when it is not a decision, it would be mandatory to pay compensation at all material times, and till the time compensation is not paid, the infringement of the legal and Constitutional rights would keep occurring. If such right and authority in the person is not recognized, in our opinion, it would amount to a complete negation of the rights guaranteed under Article 300A of the Constitution, as also, rendering the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act nugatory. There cannot be a contrary intention of either the Constitutional provisions or the relevant statute," the judges said.

The judges made it clear that it cannot be said that the right of the petitioner to receive compensation in any manner stood extinguished and/or that the petitioner had acquiesced in the non-receipt of compensation. 

"It is quite clear that although the petitioner voluntarily surrendered the possession of the land, she never gave up her right to receive compensation as clearly seen from her voluntary affidavit. These facts make it clear that the petitioner became landless, in as much as, the petitioner's right to enjoy the land of her ownership has been deprived and that too without following the due process of law. It requires no elaboration that in depriving the petitioner of her land and taking away the petitioner's ownership and by allotting the land to third parties, has amounted to a gross violation of petitioner's constitutional right guaranteed under Article 300A of the Constitution, applying the aforesaid well settled principles of law," the bench said. 

The judges, further said that it is evident that the State's actions or inactions have exacerbated the injustice suffered by the petitioner, ultimately forcing her to approach this Court, albeit belatedly. This lackadaisical approach is highlighted by the State's initiation of acquisition proceedings in respect of the petitioner's land, however, in not including the petitioner's land in the award, that too after dispossession of the petitioner without payment of compensation to the petitioner, the bench said.

"It is quite astonishing that the State would intend to evade its obligatory duty of paying compensation to the petitioner whose land has been utilised for a public purpose to rehabilitate the project affected persons of Dudhganga Irrigation project. This is certainly not permissible. State cannot deny payment of compensation having dispossessed the petitioner as also taking away petitioner's ownership," the judges said. 

With these observations, the bench ordered the State to calculate the appropriate compensation and pay the same to the petitioners. 

Appearance:

Advocates Nitin Deshpande, Kanchan Phatak and Rachana Harpale appeared for the Petitioners.

Assistant Government Pleader SB Kalel represented the State.

Case Title: Sumitra Khane vs Deputy Collector, Special Land Acquisition (Writ Petition 4987 of 2022)

Click Here To Read/Download Judgment