Private property is a human right, Supreme Court of India rules

Back to Real Estate Committee publications

Sushant Shetty
Fox Mandal & Associates, Mumbai
sushant.shetty@foxmandal.in

Rikkesh Dedhia
Fox Mandal & Associates, Mumbai
rikky.dedhia@foxmandal.in

Introduction

On 8 January 2020, the Supreme Court of India in its landmark decision of Vidya Devi v The State of Himachal Pradesh and Others held that the state could not be permitted to perfect its title over land by invoking the doctrine of adverse possession to usurp the property of its own citizens, without taking recourse to acquisition proceedings or following due procedure of law.

Background

In this case, Vidya Devi was the owner of about 3.34 hectares of land in the northern state of Himachal Pradesh.

The state of Himachal Pradesh (the respondent in the case) forcibly acquired the land in about 1967-68 for construction of a road without following the due process of law. Being illiterate Devi was unaware of her rights with respect to her property. She became cognisant of her right to claim compensation in 2010 when her neighbouring landowner did the same in respect to acquisition of his land from the state of Himachal Pradesh.

Devi filed a civil writ petition before the Himachal Pradesh High Court, claiming for compensation with respect to her property as per the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The High Court in 2013 dismissed the petition on the ground that the matter involved disputed questions of law and facts essential for determining the starting point of limitation and also granted liberty to file a civil suit before the appropriate court.

Aggrieved by the order of the High Court, Devi approached the apex judicial authority, the Supreme Court of India.

Relevant provision of law

Before 1978, the right to property was considered as a fundamental right. However, after the 44th Constitution Amendment in 1978, the right to property ceased to be a fundamental right but it continued to be a constitutional right.

Even so, Article 300 A of the Constitution of India provides that: ‘No person shall be deprived of his property save by authority of law.’

The verdict

The bench, made up of Justice Indu Malhotra and Justice Ajay Rastogi, observed that:

‘the State cannot dispossess a citizen of his property except in accordance with the procedure established by law. The obligation to pay compensation, though not expressly included in Article 300 A, can be inferred in that Article. To forcibly dispossess a person of his private property, without following due process of law, would be violative of a human right, as also the constitutional right under Article 300 A of the Constitution.’

The Supreme Court further held that the state could not take plea of adverse possession since it had been in continuous possession of the property for more than 42 years and that 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.’

After considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the Supreme Court directed the state of Himachal Pradesh to pay the compensation along with statutory benefits, including solatium and interest, within eight weeks of the decision.