- In the case of Heera Singh Pangtey and ors. vs. State of Uttarakhand and ors. the Hon’ble Uttarakhand HC has dismissed the writ petition challenging the notification issued under Section 11(1) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 which proposed to acquire lands near the line of actual control for the Indo-Tibetan Border Police (ITBP).
- In the instant case, the petitioners were resident of the village Milam, which is situated at the height of 12,000 to 13,000 feet above sea level, in the district of Pithoragarh. The land which was the subject of the current dispute was located about 25 kms from the Line of Actual Control, which is the border of India and China, and is of a great strategic importance.
- The petitioners had argued that they belonged to the Bhotia tribe, which has been listed as a Scheduled Tribe and is protected by the Constitution, and thus, by virtue of section 40 and 41 of the Act stated above, their lands could not be acquired, even for defence purposes. It is important to note that as per section 41 of the Act, no lands belonging to scheduled castes and tribes would be acquired except for very strong reasons, and would be done only as a last resort. This section also contains various special provisions which serve the purpose of protecting the rights of these communities.
- Another argument that was advanced by the petitioners was that the notification was in violation of Section 21 of the Act which mandates a 30 days notice period which has to be provided after the publication of the notification before acquisition of the land, even if the said acquisition was for public purposes.
- The said notification was also said to be in contravention of section 15 of the Act which states that any person who is interested the said and has to be given a period of sixty days for objecting to the said acquisition on the ground of justification offered for public purpose, findings of the Social Impact Assessment Report, etc.
- The Hon’ble Court relied upon the decision in Laxman Lal vs State of Rajasthan (2013) SCC wherein it was held that the intention behind section 15 of the Act for hearing an objection is confined to the effect of the Social Impact Assessment Report and ruled that this provision does not provide absolute immunity to the landholder when the said right impedes upon the defence of the Country, which makes immediate possession of the land very necessary for meeting the defence needs.
- The Court rejected the argument of the petitioners wherein they claimed special rights as being members of Scheduled Tribe. The Court observed that no material had been brought on record to suggest that the village Milam was a scheduled area as per Part C of the Fifth Schedule of the Constitution.
- The Court also ruled that though the right to property was not a fundamental right anymore, it was still a Constitutional right and the same cannot be infringed arbitrarily. But it could be done through due process of law and when reasonable compensation has been awarded in lieu of the acquisition.
- Thus, the writ petition was dismissed on the ground that the safeguard that has been granted by the statute cannot be put above the defence needs of the Country and particularly so when the right granted under Article 300A of the constitution is still protected by way of awarding a reasonable and fair compensation.
"Loved reading this piece by Shweta?
Join LAWyersClubIndia's network for daily News Updates, Judgment Summaries, Articles, Forum Threads, Online Law Courses, and MUCH MORE!!"
Join LAWyersClubIndia's network for daily News Updates, Judgment Summaries, Articles, Forum Threads, Online Law Courses, and MUCH MORE!!"
