|
In a significant ruling, the Supreme Court on Thursday held that the acquisition of private properties is unconstitutional if the procedure is not followed properly while depriving a person of his land.
A bench of justices Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Aravind Kumar's ruling came while upholding the Calcutta High Court decision. The top court also made it clear that acquisition of land without following the due procedure would be outside the authority of law and outlined seven procedure guidelines for land acquisition. "We have already held that Section 352 is only intended to enable the Municipal Commissioner to decide whether a land is to be acquired for public purpose. The power of acquisition is in fact vested with the State under Section 537 and it will exercise it, in its own discretion, whenever the Municipal Commissioner makes an application to that effect. We have also agreed with the decision of the High Court that Section 363 is not a provision for compensation for compulsory acquisition," the court said. "In this context, we have also held that a valid power of acquisition coupled with the provision for fair compensation by itself would not complete and exhaust the power and process of acquisition. Prescription of the necessary procedures, before depriving a person of his property is an integral part of the 'authority of law', under Article 300A and, Section 352 of the Act contemplates no procedure whatsoever," the court said. "In the above analysis, we are of the considered opinion that the High Court was fully justified in allowing the writ petition and rejecting the case of the appellant- corporation acquiring land under Section 352 of the Act. The impugned judgement does not brook interference on any count," the court said as it rejected Kolkata Municipal Corporation's plea against the judgement of the High Court of Calcutta dated December 17, 2019. The top court also imposed a cost of Rs 5,00,000, to be paid to the land owner within a period of sixty days. The court also laid out various guidelines, including the right to notice. A prior notice informing the bearer of the right that the state intends to deprive them of the right to property is a right in itself; a linear extension of the right to know embedded in Article 19(1)(a). Among other principles are the Right to be heard, the right to a reasoned decision, The duty to acquire only for public purpose, the Right of restitution or fair compensation. Calcutta High Court had disposed of the appeals with a direction that the Kolkata municipal Corporation may initiate acquisition proceedings for the Property under Section 536 or 537 of the Act, within five months, or in the alternative, restore the name of the last recorded owner as the owner of the Property. The Kolkata Municipal Corporation moved the top court, claiming to have acquired the property of a person in exercise of powers under Section 352 of the Kolkata Municipal Corporation Act, 1980. (ANI)
|
