Illegal Encroachment in Breach of Ribbon Development Rules Does Not Entitle Owner to Compensation for Demolition

The Appellant (plaintiff) owned a parcel of land and a fabrication factory known as "Gangadhar Industries" on the Una Kodinar Highway

In 1994, she obtained a permanent injunction in Regular Civil Suit (RCS) No. 343 of 1994, which restrained the State and Kodinar Municipality from damaging her property without following due process of law

In December 2001, the State demolished the appellant’s compound wall during a city-wide demolition drive

The Appellant filed Special Civil Suit No. 153 of 2004 for recovery of ₹7,00,000 for economic and mental loss, alleging the demolition violated the 1994 decree

The State contended the construction breached the Ribbon Development Rules (requiring a 10-meter margin from the road center) and was removed after issuing notice on 26.07.2000

The trial court dismissed the suit on 31.01.2012, leading to this appeal

1. Whether the defendants proved that the construction was in breach of Ribbon Development Rules and was removed legally after following due process?

2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to compensation for economic and mental loss arising from the demolition?

The Court primarily applied the Ribbon Development Rules, which mandate a 10-meter margin from the center point of a highway for any construction

The Court relied on the judicial interpretation of "Due Process of Law" established in Maria Margarida Sequeira Fernandes v. Erasmo Jack De Sequeira, which clarifies that "due process" is satisfied once a party has had an opportunity to be heard or once rights are adjudicated by a competent court

Regarding the duties of a First Appellate Court, the court applied the principles from Laliteshwar Prasad Singh v. S.P. Srivastava, which states that while the appellate court is the final court of fact, it need not restate reasons when concurring with the trial court's findings

The Court evaluated the evidence and found that the Appellant failed to prove her construction was legal

Documentary evidence (Exh. 25) submitted by the Appellant herself revealed that the factory was situated only 5.10 meters from the road center, violating the mandatory 10-meter margin under Ribbon Development Rules

Regarding "due process," the Court noted that the State had issued a notice on 26.07.2000 for a hearing on 14.08.2000, which the Appellant did not rebut or participate in

The Court reasoned that since the construction constituted a "rank encroachment," its removal after notice satisfied the "due process" requirement mandated by the previous 1994 injunction

Consequently, a party who violates the law by constructing illegal encroachments cannot claim compensation for their removal

The Court confirmed the trial court's judgment, dismissed the appeal, and ruled that the Appellant is not entitled to any compensation