Punjab ordered to acquire retired Lt Gen’s land occupied since 1972 and pay 6% interest on compensation award

The petitioner, a retired Lieutenant General, claimed ownership of land comprised in specified khasra numbers in Village Khudda, Tehsil Tanda/Dasuya, District Hoshiarpur.

He alleged that the State, through the PWD, had constructed and maintained a road over his private land since 1972 without acquisition or payment of compensation, and had subsequently undertaken further road and pipeline-related works.

A revenue demarcation conducted in 2020 reported encroachment by the PWD, while a fresh demarcation carried out pursuant to the High Court’s directions found approximately 10.5 marlas in the PWD’s possession, including 1.5 marlas under the existing metalled road.

The State initially asserted that the road had been constructed on land provided by the Gram Panchayat, but later expressed willingness to acquire the affected 10.5 marlas under the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (“RFCTLARR Act”).

The petitioner agreed to acquisition but also claimed damages or interest for the State’s use and occupation of the land from 1972 until the acquisition proceedings commenced.

Whether the State could retain the petitioner’s private land used for the road without acquisition and, if not, whether the land was required to be acquired under the RFCTLARR Act, 2013?

Whether the petitioner was entitled to compensation, rent, damages, or interest for the State’s possession and use of the land from 1972 until issuance of the acquisition notification under Section 11 of the RFCTLARR Act?

Whether the State could condition acquisition upon the petitioner waiving any claim for damages relating to the prior use of the land?

The Court applied Article 300A of the Constitution, under which no person may be deprived of property except by authority of law; the right to property, although no longer a fundamental right, remains a constitutional and human right.

Relying on Vidya Devi v. State of Himachal Pradesh, 2020 (2) SCC 569, the Court held that the State cannot forcibly dispossess a citizen or perfect its title through adverse possession without following lawful procedure.

Under the RFCTLARR Act, 2013, acquisition must be initiated through the statutory process, including notification under Section 11, with all applicable statutory benefits.

Relying on R.L. Jain (D) by LRs v. DDA, 2004 (4) SCC 79, and subsequent decisions including Balwan Singh v. Land Acquisition Collector, 2016 (13) SCC 412, Madishetti Bala Ramul v. Land Acquisition Officer, 2007 (9) SCC 650, and Shankarrao Bhagwantrao Patil v. State of Maharashtra, the Court held that where the State takes possession before acquisition, title remains with the landowner and the landowner is entitled to rent or damages for the period of prior possession and use.

The Court treated the State’s possession of the petitioner’s 10.5 marlas since construction of the road in 1972 as undisputed, particularly because the State had itself agreed to acquire the land.

Since the land had been used for a public road without prior acquisition or compensation, continued possession without statutory authority was inconsistent with Article 300A and the principles governing compulsory acquisition.

Applying R.L. Jain, the Court held that the petitioner was entitled to compensation for the State’s pre-acquisition use and occupation, separate from the statutory compensation payable upon acquisition.

Consequently, the State could not require the petitioner to waive claims for prior use as a condition of acquisition; the condition imposed in the Government’s letter dated 16.09.2026 was held unsustainable.

In view of the prolonged possession and the admitted historical use of the land, the Court awarded simple interest at 6% per annum on the awarded amount from 1972 until issuance of the Section 11 notification.

The State was directed to acquire the petitioner’s 10.5 marlas under the RFCTLARR Act, 2013, issue the Section 11 notification forthwith, complete the acquisition process within three months, and pay all statutory benefits within that period.

The petitioner was further awarded simple interest at 6% per annum on the acquisition award amount from 1972 until issuance of the Section 11 notification, payable within three months.

The State’s proposed condition requiring waiver of damages for prior use was rejected.

Costs of Rs.50,000 were imposed on the State and directed to be paid to the petitioner within three months.