Introduction:

In the case of Smt. Shashi Pandey v. The State of Madhya Pradesh & Others (Writ Petition No. 5793 of 2016), the Madhya Pradesh High Court came down heavily on the State authorities for illegally dispossessing the petitioner, Smt. Shashi Pandey, from her land and delaying compensation for nearly two decades. The case, which began in 2007, saw the petitioner battling for the return or compensation of her property that was unlawfully taken by the State without following due process under the Land Acquisition Act. Justice G.S. Ahluwalia, presiding over the matter, emphasized that the right to property is not only a constitutional right under Article 300-A but also a human right, reaffirming that no one can be deprived of their property without the authority of law.

Arguments of the Petitioner:

Smt. Shashi Pandey, the petitioner, argued that her land had been illegally acquired by the State authorities without issuing the necessary notifications under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. Despite a District Court ruling in her favor in 2001, which clearly stated that her land was not included in the acquisition notification, and ordered the authorities to restore her possession, the State failed to comply.

After years of legal proceedings, the authorities continued to delay action, neither returning the land nor initiating acquisition procedures as directed by the court. Pandey further contended that despite an order passed by the High Court in 2006, which directed the Collector, Jabalpur to either acquire the land or return it to her, no compensation or restoration of possession had been made. The petitioner highlighted that, although her land had been utilized for a bypass construction project, the authorities had never compensated her for the unlawful dispossession, thus infringing upon her constitutional right to property.

Arguments of the Respondent (State Authorities):

The State authorities, represented by the Collector, Jabalpur, and the National Highways Authority of India (NHAI), argued that the land had been handed over to NHAI for the construction of a bypass, making it impractical to return the property to the petitioner. They contended that it was not in the public interest to return the land and that the construction project had already been completed.

Furthermore, the State authorities argued that they were not liable to pay compensation under Section 48 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, since the land had not been acquired through a formal acquisition process. The Collector, Jabalpur, also submitted that if the court were inclined to award compensation, further instructions from the State Government would be required. This submission shocked the court, as it reflected a lack of commitment to upholding legal obligations and ensuring the petitioner’s rights were protected.

Court’s Judgment:

The Madhya Pradesh High Court, in its judgment, sharply criticized the State authorities for their conduct, describing their actions as akin to “goons” who had illegally dispossessed the petitioner from her land without due process of law. Justice Ahluwalia reaffirmed that the right to property is not only a constitutional right under Article 300-A but also a human right. He cited the Supreme Court’s decision in Tukaram Kana Joshi v. MIDC (2013), which recognized that the right to property is a multifaceted human right. The court emphasized that no one could be deprived of their property without the sanction of law, and the State’s actions were in clear violation of this principle.

Justice Ahluwalia further stated that although the obligation of the State to pay compensation is not explicitly mentioned in Article 300-A, it is inherently embedded within it. The State cannot deprive individuals of their property for public purposes without compensating them. The court observed that the authorities had sat over the matter for 17 years, from 2007, when the acquisition was first proposed, and had done little to resolve the issue. The court held that the petitioner was entitled to compensation, mesne profits, or rent for the illegal dispossession from the date of her dispossession until the land is either formally acquired or returned to her.

Failure to Respect Judicial Orders:

The High Court expressed its dismay at the State authorities’ failure to follow court orders and statutory obligations. It condemned the actions of the Collector, Jabalpur, who, despite being aware of the case’s history, had taken no steps to acquire the land or return it to the petitioner. The court noted that this inaction violated the petitioner’s constitutional and human rights, as well as the orders passed by the District Court and High Court.

The court also took issue with the submission by the Collector, Jabalpur, that further instructions would be required from the State Government to compensate the petitioner. The court referred to the Supreme Court’s decision in Hari Krishna Mandir Trust v. State of Maharashtra and Others (2020), which held that even in cases of illegal dispossession, compensation must be paid as a matter of obligation. The High Court described the Collector’s conduct as contemptuous and issued a notice to the current Collector, Shri Deepak Saxena, to explain why contempt proceedings should not be initiated against him for flouting judicial orders and failing to act on the 2007 order passed by his predecessor.

Conclusion:

In a significant ruling, the court ordered the State Government to pay compensation of Rs. 10,000 per month to the petitioner for illegally dispossessing her from her 29,150 square feet of land. This compensation was to be paid from February 5, 1988, until the land is duly acquired under the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation, and Resettlement Act, 2013. The court’s order serves as a stark reminder to the State authorities that the right to property, though not a fundamental right, is a vital constitutional and human right that cannot be ignored orviolated without consequence.