Supreme Court said that one cannot be deprived of property rights on the basis of delay in filing the petition.

New Delhi: The Supreme Court said that delay in filing the petition is definitely an important factor, but on its basis alone a person cannot be deprived of his/her property rights. A Supreme Court bench led by Justice JB Pardiwala admitted the petition related to alleged irregularities in the land acquisition process even after a delay of 21 years. In the judgment given on December 13, the Supreme Court said that the decisions of the apex court have consistently held that the right to property is enshrined in the Constitution. Procedural safeguards must be followed to avoid impartiality and arbitrariness, particularly in cases of state takeover.

The delay in filing the petition in the apex court has been considered important, but said that we forgive this delay to protect the right to property. Delay cannot take precedence over the need to protect the right to property enshrined in Article 300A. It is important to maintain balance in legal proceedings. The right to protect and validate personal property cannot be denied merely on the basis of delay and inaction. The Supreme Court rejected four appeals filed by the Urban Improvement Trust. These appeals challenged the decision of the Rajasthan High Court, which had canceled the acquisition of land of land owners under the Rajasthan Urban Improvement Act, 1959 (RUI Act).

The case is related to two cases of Rajasthan

This case pertains to two separate land acquisitions. The land is located in Nangli Kota land and Moongska in Alwar, Rajasthan. These lands were acquired. Both acquisition processes were challenged by land owners in the Rajasthan High Court in 1998. The issue before the Supreme Court was whether the delay in filing the writ petition by the owners against the land acquisition was fatal? Were the notifications issued under Section 52(1) of the RUI Act valid despite procedural errors? Was the compensation for Nangli Kota land determined legally? Was compliance with Section 60A of the RUI Act mandatory for the validity of the acquisition?

‘Notice not given personally’

The Supreme Court said that the notice under Section 52(2) was neither given personally to the land owners nor pasted at any visible place near the property. Even before the compensation was deposited, the State Government took possession of the land in violation of Section 52(7) and transferred it to the Appellant Trust. Compensation for Nangli Kota land was not paid within the time limit prescribed by section 60A(3) and (4). The Court stressed that strict adherence to the timelines prescribed for determining and paying compensation under Sections 60A(3) and 60A(4) is mandatory. Non-compliance with these provisions invalidates the acquisition under the RUI Act.