Vidya Devi vs The State of Himachal Pradesh and others

In a judgment rendered by the Bench of Justices Indu Malhotra and Ajay Rastogi, the
Apex Court has reinforced the right to property as a Constitutional Right guaranteed
under Article 300 of the Constitution of India and stated that the right to fair compensation
in case of acquisition can be inferred in the Article. The Supreme Court reiterated that the
Right to property continues to be a Human Right in a welfare State and a Constitutional
right in India even though it has ceased to be a Fundamental Right. The State cannot
dispossess a person of their property without due process of law, the Court added. The
Court said that Article 300A of the Constitution upholds one's right to property as a
Constitutional right and guarantees that no person can be dispossessed of the same.

The court directed the Himachal Pradesh government to pay the compensation to an
illiterate widow in eight weeks with all statutory benefits, whose land it had acquired in
1967-68 for construction of a road between Nadaun-Sujanpur Road in Hamirpur district
without following the acquisition proceedings. The bench also deprecated the state for
claiming adverse possession as it has been in continuous possession of the land for over
42 years.

She moved the Himachal Pradesh High Court seeking compensation or for the initiation of
acquisition proceedings. In response, the State claimed "adverse possession" on the
Appellant's property,

The High Court held that the matter required determination of facts and questions
concerning the period of limitation, and granted liberty to the Appellant to file a civil suit.
Even in the Review sought by the Appellant, the High Court refused to alter its order,
which brought the matter to the Supreme Court in appeal.

The Apex Court, in turn, expressed shock at the State's argument presented before the
High Court in relation to adverse possession. In this regard, the judgment says,

“The State is a welfare State, cannot be permitted to take the plea of adverse
possession...The State cannot be permitted to perfect its title over the land by invoking
the doctrine of adverse possession to grab the property of its own citizens, as has been
done in the present case.”

The Court also rejected the State's argument regarding the delay on part of the Appellant
to move the Courts. The Court observed that this argument cannot be raised where the
cause of action is continuing one or if the case shocks the judicial conscience of the
Court.

In 2004, other similarly placed landowners had approached the courts seeking
compensation from the State for the acquisition of their property and by way of the court
order, the State was directed to make the requisite payment. This order did not include the
Appellant who was uninformed of these proceedings up until 2010.

Condonation of delay is a matter of judicial discretion, the Court said. It added further that
the same ought to be exercised reasonably and will depend on the facts owing to which
the delay was caused, as well as the extent of violation of one's right.

“There is no period of limitation prescribed for the courts to exercise their constitutional
jurisdiction to do substantial justice.”
Condoning the delay in the instant case, and calling it a compelling case for the demand
of justice, the Court exercised its extraordinary jurisdiction under Articles 136 and 142 to
direct the State of Himachal Pradesh to pay the Appellant for her land which was taken
over by the State, admittedly without acquisition proceedings. Costs of Rs 1 lakh were
also directed to be paid to the Appellant by the State.