The Supreme Court of India, in a pivotal ruling, declared that constitutional protections on property rights cannot be overridden by procedural delays, emphasizing the paramount importance of following due process in land acquisition cases. The judgment, delivered by Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice Manoj Misra in Urban Improvement Trust vs. Smt. Vidhya Devi & Ors. (Civil Appeal No. 14473 of 2024), scrutinized the Urban Improvement Trust’s acquisition of land in Alwar, Rajasthan, and invalidated the proceedings for significant procedural lapses.
Background
The case revolved around the acquisition of two parcels of land—referred to as the Nangli Kota land (Survey Nos. 229 and 229/287) and the Moongaska land (Survey No. 141)—under the Rajasthan Urban Improvement Act, 1959 (RUI Act). The acquisition, initiated in 1976, affected the legal heirs of late Ram Narain and other landowners.
Decades later, the Rajasthan High Court quashed the acquisition in 2009, citing non-compliance with procedural safeguards such as individual notices to landowners and delayed payment of compensation. The Urban Improvement Trust (UIT), Alwar, appealed to the Supreme Court, arguing that procedural compliance had been met and delay on the part of the respondents rendered their challenge untenable.
Legal Issues
The Supreme Court deliberated on key issues:
1. Whether the respondents’ delay in challenging the acquisition barred them from relief.
2. Whether procedural lapses in notifying landowners under Section 52(2) of the RUI Act invalidated the acquisition.
3. Whether compensation for the Nangli Kota land was determined and paid lawfully.
4. Whether the statutory time limits for passing awards under the amended RUI Act were mandatory.
5. Whether failure to pay compensation within statutory deadlines negated absolute vesting of the land.
Supreme Court’s Findings
Balancing Delay with Constitutional Safeguards:
The Court held that delay in filing legal challenges cannot be used to shield patently illegal actions. Referring to precedents like Vidya Devi v. State of Himachal Pradesh (2020) and Sukh Dutt Ratra v. State of Himachal Pradesh (2022), it asserted that procedural delays do not diminish the obligation to uphold constitutional safeguards, especially the right to property under Article 300A.
“Where the breach of fundamental rights shocks the judicial conscience, courts must act to promote justice rather than defeat it,” the Court observed.
On Procedural Lapses:
The Court found the UIT and State Government guilty of failing to serve individual notices to landowners under Section 52(2) of the RUI Act. While constructive notice suffices in some cases, the failure to notify certain landowners deprived them of their right to representation. This procedural irregularity was deemed sufficient to invalidate the acquisition.
On Compensation and Vesting:
The judgment highlighted that compensation for the Nangli Kota land was not paid within the mandatory six-month period as per Section 60A(4) of the amended RUI Act. Justice Pardiwala reiterated the principle laid down in Delhi Airtech Services (P) Ltd. v. State of U.P. (2022), which states that possession without timely compensation violates statutory requirements and nullifies absolute vesting of the land.
Important Observations
1. Right to Property: “The right to property, while no longer a fundamental right, remains a constitutional guarantee under Article 300A. Procedural lapses cannot erode this safeguard,” the Court noted.
2. Delay and Laches: “Delay cannot override the necessity to rectify illegalities, especially when property rights and constitutional safeguards are at stake.”
3. Public Purpose vs. Procedural Fairness: “Even acquisitions for public purposes must meet the threshold of procedural fairness. Non-compliance with statutory mandates renders such actions void.”
Decision
The Supreme Court upheld the Rajasthan High Court’s decision to quash the acquisition of the Moongaska land and invalidated the notification under Section 52(1) of the RUI Act for the Nangli Kota land. It directed the UIT to follow due process if it sought to reinitiate acquisition.
