As per case facts, the respondent filed a writ petition in the High Court seeking a writ of Mandamus against the appellant-State, alleging that his land in Azamgarh was forcibly ...
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 3
CASE NO.:
Appeal (civil) 1058 of 2000
PETITIONER:
State of U.P. & Ors.
RESPONDENT:
Manohar
DATE OF JUDGMENT: 15/12/2004
BENCH:
Shivaraj V. Patil & B.N. Srikrishna
JUDGMENT:
J U D G M E N T
B.N. Srikrishna, J.
The respondent filed a writ petition before the High Court of
judicature of Allahabad seeking a writ of Mandamus to the appellant-
State of Uttar Pradesh and its officers to determine the compensation
in respect of his land bearing plot no. 3 Ka (0.29 acres), 4 (0.37
acres) and 3 kha (1.01 acres) in village Chakiya Bhagwanpur, Tehsil
Lalganj, District Azamgarh, which, according to the respondent, had
been taken away forcibly without following any process of law. It was
the specific case of the respondent that he had been dispossessed
from his land and the land had been taken by the appellants without
payment of any compensation and further that the appellants had put
up building and structures on the land sometime in 1955 and that
despite repeated appeals made by him nobody was prepared to pay
compensation. He enclosed along with the writ petition a letter no.
73/S.T.D.M-91 dated 9/10.4.91 written by the Collector, Azamgarh
to the Sepcial Land Acquisition Officer Azamgarh to the following
effect:
"Please refer to the application of Shri Manohar s/o
Raghunath, Mauja Kharga Bhagwanpur, Block
Lalganj (enclosed). He has stated that the
compensation for the land acquired for development
Block, Lalganj has not yet been paid even though
the construction of the Development Block has
been done in the year 1955.
After looking into matter action be taken to make
payment of the compensation and I may be informed
about the position."
This was replied to by the Special Land Acquisition Officer by
his letter dated 5.8.91 in which he says thus :
"Please refer to this officer letter
no.1159/Aa.S.L.A.D.(J.V.) dated 23.3.1991; and
letter no.28(2) eight S.L.A. O.(J.V.) dated 16.4.91
on the above subject under which Shri Manohar
Ram r/o Chakia Bhagwanpur Pargana Devgaon
Tehsil- Lalganj Special Power of Attorney Shrilal
s/o Bhoval made a complaint to the collection for
non-payment of the compensation of the land
acquired for construction of Development Block,
Lalganj. The B.D.O. Lalganj has informed that the
Development Block, Lalganj was established on
16.1.1955 at 1.533 acres of land.
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 3
Enclosing an attested copy of the Khatauni of 1377
F with his Application dated 20.6.91 Shri Manohar
has given an application that his land no. 3ka, 3kaa,
4ka has not been acquired but during consolidation
operation the Block Office being already in
existence there, his name was deleted by the
Department of consolidation. The copy of the
intkhab Khatauni was verified from the papers
preserved by the Record Room and the entries of the
Khatauni were found to be correct. Even in the
office there is no reference of any proposal for land
acquisition.
Thus from the records and circumstantial evidence it
is evident that the land of Development Block,
Lalganj has not been acquired and on the basis of
the local position during consolidation operation the
Asstt. Consolidation Officer stated the name of the
office of Development Block in Records. Under
these circumstances, it is requested that the
compensation of the land of development block
office Lalganj may be paid by mutual settlement.
Under the above circumstances, this office has no
concern with this case."
The grievance of the respondent before the High Court was that
his name was high-handedly deleted from the revenue record and the
revenue record thereafter showed the name of the appellants. He was
dispossessed from the land and no compensation was paid, nor were
any steps taken in law for acquiring the land. The respondent
demanded an amount of Rs.10 lakhs as compensation with interest
from the date of dispossession.
The appellants appeared through counsel before the High Court
and produced certain records. In view of the correspondence, to
which we have referred, between the officers of the State, the High
Court came to the conclusion that the case made out by the respondent
was acceptable and that the State should be directed to take steps to
pay compensation to the petitioner within 3 months with appropriate
interest in accordance with the law. The High Court contemptuously
dismissed the arguments of the counsel for the appellant that the
petitioner had already been paid the compensation but that the records
evidencing such payment were not available as they had been 'weeded
out' due to the delay on the part of the respondent in approaching the
Court.
As a matter of fact, the appellants were unable to produce even
a scrap of evidence indicating that the land of the respondent had been
taken over or acquired in any manner known to law or that he had
ever been paid any compensation in respect of such acquisition. That
the land was thereafter constructed upon, is not denied.
Having heard the learned counsel for the appellants, we are
satisfied that the case projected before the Court by the appellants is
utterly untenable and not worthy of emanating from any State which
professes the least regard to being a welfare State. When we pointed
out to the learned counsel that, at this stage at least, the State should
be gracious enough to accept its mistake and promptly pay the
compensation to the respondent, the State has taken an intractable
attitude and persisted in opposing what appears to be a just and
reasonable claim of the respondent.
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 3
Ours is a constitutional democracy and the rights available to
the citizens are declared by the Constitution.Although Article 19(1)(f)
was deleted by the 44th Amendment to the Constitution, Article 300A
has been placed in the Constitution, which reads as follows:
"300A- Persons not to be deprived of property save by
authority of law \026 No person shall be deprived of his
property save by authority of law."
This is a case where we find utter lack of legal authority for
deprivation of the respondent's property by the appellants who are
State authorities. In our view, this case was an eminently fit one for
exercising the writ jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226
of the Constitution. In our view, the High Court was somewhat
liberal in not imposing exemplary costs on the appellants. We would
have perhaps followed suit, but for the intransigence displayed
before us.
In the result, we dismiss the appeal with exemplary costs of
Rs.25,000/-. The compensation payable as directed by the High
Court, together with the costs directed by us, shall be paid within a
period of 3 months from today.
The respondent shall also be paid interest on the
compensation amount from 22.2.1999 till date of payment @ 9% per
annum.
A compliance report shall be filed by the appellants with the
Registrar General of this Court. The appellants are charged
personally with the duty of ensuring compliance with the order of
this Court failing which they shall be answerable to this Court in
contempt jurisdiction.
Copy of this order shall be transmitted to the Chief Secretary,
State of Uttar Pradesh for his information and appropriate action.
The Supreme Court's definitive judgment in **The State of U.P. & Ors. v. Manohar** stands as a crucial precedent for **Land Acquisition India** and the robust **Property Rights Enforcement** mechanism available to citizens. This pivotal ruling, now easily accessible on CaseOn, underscores the judiciary's unwavering commitment to constitutional principles against arbitrary state action, reinforcing public trust in the legal system.
The case originated from a writ petition filed by the respondent, Manohar, before the Allahabad High Court. Manohar alleged that the State of Uttar Pradesh and its officers had forcibly taken possession of his land, comprising plot no. 3 Ka (0.29 acres), 4 (0.37 acres), and 3 kha (1.01 acres) in village Chakiya Bhagwanpur, District Azamgarh. This dispossession occurred sometime in 1955, with the State allegedly constructing buildings on the land without following any legal process for acquisition or paying compensation.
Manohar repeatedly appealed to authorities for compensation, but to no avail. He presented compelling evidence, including a letter from the Collector, Azamgarh, dated 9/10.4.91, acknowledging his grievance and directing the Special Land Acquisition Officer (SLAO) to investigate and ensure compensation payment for the land used for the Development Block, Lalganj. The SLAO's subsequent reply confirmed that while the Development Block was established on 16.1.1955 on 1.533 acres, there was no record of formal land acquisition, suggesting compensation by mutual settlement.
The primary issue before the High Court and subsequently the Supreme Court was whether the State could forcibly dispossess a citizen of their property, utilize it for public purposes, and erect structures thereon without any formal land acquisition process or payment of compensation, thereby violating the citizen's constitutional right to property.
The core legal principle at play is enshrined in **Article 300A of the Constitution of India**, which stipulates: "No person shall be deprived of his property save by authority of law." This article, introduced by the 44th Amendment, emphasizes that deprivation of property must always be backed by a valid legal authority and process. Additionally, the **writ jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226** serves as a vital tool for citizens to seek redress against arbitrary state actions.
The High Court meticulously examined the evidence, particularly the correspondence between the State's own officers, which clearly indicated that Manohar's land had been used for public purposes since 1955 without any record of acquisition or compensation. The High Court found the respondent's case acceptable and directed the State to pay compensation with appropriate interest within three months.
Upon appeal to the Supreme Court, the State continued to defend its position, arguing that compensation might have been paid, but records were "weeded out." However, the State failed to produce any credible evidence—not a single scrap—to prove lawful acquisition or compensation payment. This glaring absence of evidence fortified Manohar's claim.
The Supreme Court expressed severe disapproval of the State's "utterly untenable" and "intractable attitude." The Court highlighted that such conduct was "not worthy of emanating from any State which professes the least regard to being a welfare State." The bench strongly affirmed the constitutional right to property under Article 300A, reiterating that state authorities cannot deprive a person of their property without the authority of law.
To provide clear insights into such complex legal scenarios, CaseOn.in 2-minute audio briefs offer legal professionals an efficient way to quickly grasp the nuances and implications of rulings like **The State of U.P. & Ors. v. Manohar**, ensuring they stay informed without extensive reading.
The Supreme Court dismissed the State's appeal with exemplary costs of Rs. 25,000/-. It directed the State to pay the compensation, along with the imposed costs and interest at 9% per annum from February 22, 1999, within three months. Furthermore, the Court charged the appellants personally with ensuring compliance, warning of contempt proceedings if the order was not followed. A compliance report was mandated, and a copy of the order was sent to the Chief Secretary of Uttar Pradesh for immediate action.
This judgment serves as a robust reminder of the sacrosanct nature of property rights in India and the accountability of the State. For **lawyers**, it provides a powerful precedent for litigating cases of illegal land acquisition and demonstrates the judiciary's resolve in ensuring justice against state apathy. It underscores the importance of maintaining meticulous records for land matters and highlights the severe consequences of failing to adhere to constitutional principles. For **law students**, it is an excellent case study on the application of Article 300A, the scope of writ jurisdiction under Article 226, and the role of the Supreme Court in upholding fundamental rights, even when challenged by state machinery. The strong language used by the Court also offers insights into judicial temperament when faced with blatant disregard for the law.
Disclaimer: All information provided in this analysis is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Please consult a qualified legal professional for advice on specific legal issues.
Legal Notes
Add a Note....