Government cannot construct on private land without initiating acquisition proceedings and providing compensation.

The petitioners claimed to be recorded owners and persons in actual possession of 27 Kanals and 8 Marlas of land comprised in Khasra Nos. 400, 403, 406, 407, 412, 419, 420, 423, 425, 426 and 428 at Baduaab, Tulail, Gurez, District Bandipora.

Pursuant to administrative approval for construction of a toilet block and teachers’ quarters for Government Higher Secondary School, Baduaab Tulail, the Public Works authorities and the contractor allegedly commenced construction on the petitioners’ private land without acquisition proceedings, despite adjoining State/Kahcharai land being available.

The petitioners submitted representations seeking demarcation before further construction, but alleged that the Tehsildar instead permitted heavy machinery to enter the site and acted coercively against some petitioners.

The respondents relied on the administrative approval, which required the component of land compensation to be included in the technically vetted DPR and project funding.

Whether the respondents could commence or continue construction on the petitioners’ alleged proprietary land without first determining, through demarcation, whether the construction occupied that land and without initiating acquisition proceedings in accordance with law?

Whether the respondents were required to conduct an on-site demarcation in the presence of the petitioners or their representatives before proceeding with the construction?

The Court applied Article 300-A of the Constitution of India, which protects the right to property and prohibits deprivation of property except by authority of law.

It held that, although the right to property is no longer a fundamental right, it retains constitutional protection and cannot be interfered with arbitrarily.

The Court further applied the principle that the State cannot undertake construction on private proprietary land without following the legally prescribed acquisition process and providing compensation; acquisition proceedings, including determination of compensation by the competent Collector, must precede governmental occupation or construction on private land.

The Court also treated demarcation as necessary where the alleged private land adjoins available State/Kahcharai land.

The Court accepted that the petitioners’ claim required factual verification because the respondents disputed, or at least did not conclusively establish, whether the construction was situated on private or State/Kahcharai land.

Since the petitioners asserted ownership over the specified Khasra numbers and alleged that construction had begun without acquisition, the Court held that the respondents could not rely merely on administrative approval or a provision for future land compensation to justify construction.

The appropriate preliminary step was an on-site demarcation in the presence of the petitioners or their representatives.

If demarcation established that the construction occupied any portion of the petitioners’ proprietary land, the constitutional protection under Article 300-A required the construction to be stopped until formal acquisition proceedings were initiated in accordance with law.

The respondents were directed to conduct an on-site demarcation within two weeks from the date copies of the order were furnished to their offices, in the presence of the petitioners or their representatives.

If the demarcation revealed that the toilet block or teachers’ quarters was being constructed on any portion of the petitioners’ proprietary land, the respondents were directed to stop construction forthwith until formal acquisition proceedings were initiated in accordance with law for payment of compensation.