Bhagauji and others vs State of Maharashtra and others

Admin

4 minutes ago

WRIT PETITION NO. 5250 OF 2020

Citation : (2021) 07 BOM CK 0022

This article is written by Sharon a BBA.LL.B (Hons), student from department of law at Sathyabama institute of science and technology.

Background:

The right to private property refers to the lawful and moral entitlement of people to claim, use, and discard property, whether it is land, buildings, or other tangible resources. A key common freedom permits people to have exclusive control their assets and use them for their own advantage. The right to private property was viewed as an fundamental right in India under article 31 of the Indian Constitution until 1978. Notwithstanding, after the 44th Constitution amendment in 1978, the right to property turned into a constitutional right as opposed to a fundamental rights.

Summary of the case :

The petitioners are occupant of various towns situated in Taluka Jalna and Ambad, and district Jalna. They own agriculture lands adjacent to national Roadway.
The petitioners, in their farming land, they have their private houses, wells, natural product trees i.e fruits and vegetables, bore-well and so on which are likewise adjoining the Public highway .
The street being referred was a little road before and it came to be changed over into state highway without payment of any pay to the petitioners while development of state highway.
It has been presented that, respondents are attempting to take effective ownership of the lands of the petitioners and respondent authorities advised the petitioners to utilize police force while taking possession.
However petitioners clarified that they are not restricting the street widening being referred to but rather the authority ought to procure their separate terrains for up-gradation of the streets according to the procedure of law
While changing over the small road into highway No. 176, the authorities neglected to start acquisition procedures, denying the owners of the held onto grounds of remuneration.
State authorities, in light of the ongoing petitioners, can’t hold onto a landowner’s property without following right legal procedures. Since the petitioners are all experiencing the same thing, the respondent authorities activity in holding onto strong control of the petitioners property for road widening by conjuring the government resolutions breaks Article 300A.
The central authorities guarantee that they are restoring existing highways with similar arrangement and bringing them up to national highways norms, instead of building new streets.
As indicated by the petitioners, the given authority or the State authorities can’t claim possession that is known for any land proprietor without keeping due procedure of law. Article 300-A of the Constitution gives that no individual will be denied of his property save by the power of law.

Issues raised in the case :

The issues that were raised under the court of Bombay are as per the following:

Is there a commitment to pay compensation under Article 300 A?
Whether the width of the national highways No. 753-H is being improved by the authorities from 12 to 30 meters, without fair treatment of law?

Synopsis of court judgement :

There is no convincing verification on record to lay out that the width of the street which goes through village and there is no doubt of acquiring land of neighbouring land owner’s or petitioners. Having respect to the above reasons and conversation, we come to an end result to give certain directions

The respondents- authorities will lead estimation of Public highway No. 753-H (recently known as state highway No. 176)
In the event that the width of the road in the separate towns is viewed as 30 meters right now of estimation, the petitioners adjoining lands won’t be obtained. Assuming the width of the street is under 30 meters right now of estimation, the State and central authorities should obtain the land under the legislation to the sum vital by them.
To abstain from any misunderstanding, the street estimation practice in towns will be done under the oversight of the district collector.
It Isn’t reasonable for any government State to remove an individual and deny him of his fundamental /constitutional/ human rights, under the grab of industrial development .
With the above judgement, these writ petitions stand discarded.

Judgement of the case :

High Court commented that commitment to pay, however may not explicitly included for Article 300 A, but can be deduced from that Article. To effectively seize an individual of his confidential property without keeping fair process of law is unquestionably violative of human rights thus likewise, constitutional right given under Article 300 A of the Indian Constitution. The bench has clearly made the judgment that in a welfare state, legal authorities are required not just to give sufficient remuneration, but rather likewise to rehabilitate the people who have been violated legal rules.

Conclusion :

The right to property can be viewed as a natural human rights here and there. In any case, this right is accessible to all people as a constitutional right and can invoke the purview in high court u/A 226 of the Constitution of India.

FAQ :