Summary
Farmers sought compensation for land used by a local body to construct and widen a public road. The Municipality asserted a voluntary, gratuitous surrender but produced no evidence of it. The Court held that the burden of proving that assertion lay on the Municipality and that public purpose did not excuse uncompensated deprivation without authority of law. It restored the Single Judge’s directions for valuation and payment, with liberty to challenge the amount in a civil court.
Issues
- Who bore the burden of proving the asserted voluntary surrender of land without compensation.
- Whether the claim could be rejected for delay, absence of a compensation scheme or the public purpose of the road.
Provisions considered
- Articles 21 and 300A, Constitution of IndiaTaking agricultural land forming part of the owners’ livelihood without lawful authority or proved gratuitous surrender violated protected rights; the public road purpose did not justify withholding compensation. (¶¶ 9-12, 16, 20-21)
Held
- The local body asserted that the owners had voluntarily surrendered their rights without consideration. It therefore bore the burden of establishing that assertion. Neither it nor the Public Works Department produced a written record or other evidence; shifting the burden to the owners to prove an assurance of compensation was erroneous. (¶¶ 12-14, 17-18)
- The owners consistently sought compensation soon after the land was used and pursued representations before filing the writ petition. The record did not support treating the demand as a stale afterthought or drawing an adverse inference because they approached both the State authorities and the local body. (¶¶ 15, 19)
- Absence of a road-development compensation scheme did not establish voluntary surrender or defeat Article 300A. The authorities had to show lawful acquisition, transfer or surrender; the Department’s account that it received land from the Panchayat supplied no proof of the owners’ consent to give it free. (¶¶ 11-12, 16-18, 20)
- Construction and widening of the road served a public purpose, but the constitutional protection also included a right to claim compensation. No justification for withholding compensation was established, so the uncompensated deprivation was arbitrary and violated Article 300A. (¶ 20-21)
Result
Appeal allowed without costs. The Division Bench judgment was set aside and the Single Judge’s order maintained: the Collector was to determine market value after hearing the owners within two months of receipt, and the Municipality to pay within one month thereafter. The owners retained liberty to challenge quantum in a civil suit on the lines of a Section 18 land-acquisition reference. Pending applications disposed of.