The Supreme Court of India, in Urban Improvement Trust v. Smt. Vidhya Devi & Ors., delivered by Justices J.B. Pardiwala and Manoj Misra, addressed critical issues of procedural compliance and the right to property under the Rajasthan Urban Improvement Act, 1959 (RUI Act). The case concerned land acquisitions in Nangli Kota and Moongaska, initiated in 1976 by the Urban Improvement Trust. The respondents, landowners and legal heirs, challenged the acquisition as procedurally flawed and unconstitutional, citing irregularities and non-payment of compensation. While the appellants argued compliance with legal requirements and invoked the principle of delay and laches, the Court upheld the High Court’s quashing of the acquisitions due to procedural and constitutional violations.
The central issue was compliance with Section 52 of the RUI Act, which mandates serving individual notices to landowners and publishing notices in the locality before an acquisition notification under Section 52(1). For Nangli Kota, the Court found that although individual notices were not served, landowners had constructive notice, evidenced by their participation in the proceedings, making the acquisition procedurally valid. However, for Moongaska, the absence of notices and the lack of evidence showing participation of all landowners rendered the acquisition procedurally defective and invalid.
Compensation was another major concern. Section 60A of the RUI Act requires compensation to be determined and paid within six months of notification for the acquisition to be valid. In the case of Nangli Kota, compensation was deposited only in 1997—over two decades after initiation—while for Moongaska, compensation was deposited after the acquisition had already been quashed. The Court ruled that these delays contravened statutory timelines and violated Article 300A, which guarantees the right to property and requires just and equitable compensation for expropriation. The Court emphasized that timely compensation is a substantive right, integral to the fairness of acquisition processes.
On the issue of delay in challenging the acquisition, the appellants argued that the respondents’ writ petitions, filed decades later, were barred by delay and laches. However, the Court noted that procedural irregularities and constitutional violations cannot be dismissed solely due to delay. It observed that the respondents were unaware of the acquisition status due to government opacity, mitigating their delay. The Court stressed that blatant procedural flaws necessitate judicial intervention regardless of the time elapsed.
Ultimately, the Supreme Court quashed both acquisitions. The acquisition of Nangli Kota was deemed invalid due to delayed compensation, despite procedural validity through constructive notice. For Moongaska, the lack of proper notice and participation by landowners rendered the process fundamentally flawed. The judgment reinforced the importance of procedural safeguards in land acquisition, asserting that statutory compliance ensures fairness and justice. It reaffirmed the constitutional right to property under Article 300A, requiring strict adherence to due process.
This ruling underscore the judiciary’s role in balancing public development with individual rights, ensuring responsible and transparent use of the state’s power of eminent domain. The decision is expected to impact future land acquisition cases by reinforcing the necessity of timely compensation and proper notice to landowners.