In a landmark judgment, the Delhi High Court has held the Central Government accountable for the unlawful occupation of private property for over two decades, ordering the payment of ₹1.76 crore as mesne profits to the rightful owners. This case underscores the judiciary's role in upholding constitutional rights and ensuring that state authorities do not overstep legal boundaries.
The dispute originated from the wrongful forfeiture of the plaintiffs' flat under the Smugglers and Foreign Exchange Manipulators (Forfeiture of Property) Act, 1976 (SAFEMA). The forfeiture was based on a detention order from the Emergency era, which was later revoked. Despite the revocation, the property remained under the control of the Directorate of Estates, a body under the Ministry of Housing & Urban Affairs, effectively denying the plaintiffs access to their property for an extended period.
Justice Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav, presiding over the case, emphasized the sanctity of property rights within a constitutional democracy. He stated, “Executive overreach beyond the four corners of the law must be met with constitutional censure, for when the protector of rights becomes the violator, the very fabric of the rule of law is imperiled.” This strong language reflects the court's disapproval of the government's prolonged and unjustified occupation of private property.
The plaintiffs argued that they were the rightful and legal owners of the property and that the government's actions amounted to a systematic violation of their proprietary rights. They highlighted that the forfeiture order was issued ex parte, without granting them an opportunity to be heard, which is a fundamental requirement of natural justice. The court found merit in this argument, noting that the defendants retained possession of the property until July 2, 2020, seven years after the forfeiture order was quashed.
The High Court declared the occupation from 1999 to 2020 unlawful and condemned the state for its continuous possession of the property without paying rent or providing any reasonable explanation. This decision reinforces the principle that the state cannot infringe upon individual rights without due process and fair compensation.
The concept of mesne profits, central to this case, refers to the compensation awarded to a property owner for the unlawful occupation of their property. As per Section 2(12) of the Civil Procedure Code, mesne profits are the profits that the person in wrongful possession actually received or might have received with ordinary diligence, along with interest. The objective is to compensate the rightful owner for the loss of use and enjoyment of their property.
This judgment has broader implications for the protection of property rights in India. It sends a clear message that government authorities must adhere to legal procedures and respect individual rights. The court's decision aligns with the principle that the right to property, though no longer a fundamental right, remains a constitutional right under Article 300A, which states that no person shall be deprived of their property save by authority of law.
Furthermore, the case highlights the importance of timely legal recourse and the judiciary's role in correcting administrative overreach. It serves as a precedent for similar cases where individuals have been deprived of their property without due process, emphasizing that the state is not above the law and must be held accountable for its actions.
In conclusion, the Delhi High Court's ruling in this case reaffirms the judiciary's commitment to upholding constitutional rights and the rule of law. By ordering the Centre to compensate the plaintiffs for the illegal occupation of their property, the court has reinforced the principle that property rights are sacrosanct and must be protected against unlawful state action.
0 Comments
Thank you for your response. It will help us to improve in the future.