Published on: 23 September 2023 at 10:30 IST
Court: Supreme Court of India
Citation: Chameli Singh V. State of U.P. (1996)
Honourable Supreme Court of India has held that State is liable for the compensation for the acquisition of the private property for the public purpose. It is held that the depriving a person of his property without solemn and just compensation is violative of the fundamental rights as enfranchised under the provision of Article 21 of the Constitution of India.
18. In every acquisition by its very compulsory nature for public purpose, the owner may be deprived of the land, the means of his livelihood. The State exercises its power of eminent domain for public purpose and acquires the land. So long as the exercise of the power is for public purpose, the individual’s right of an owner must yield place to the larger public purpose.
For compulsory nature of acquisition, sub-section (2) of Section 23 provides payment of solatium to the owner who declines to voluntarily part with the possession of land. Acquisition in accordance with the procedure is a valid exercise of the power. It would not, therefore, amount to deprivation of right to livelihood.
Section 23(1) provides compensation for the acquired land at the prices prevailing as on the date of publishing Section 4(1) notification, to be quantified at later stages of proceedings. For dispensation or dislocation, interest is payable under Section 23(1-A) as additional amount and interest under Sections 31 and 28 of the Act to recompensate the loss of right to enjoyment of the property from the date of notification under Section 23(1-A) and from the date of possession till compensation is deposited. It would thus be clear that the plea of deprivation of right to livelihood under Article 21 is unsustainable.
Drafted By Abhijit Mishra