Case Analysis: CHAMELI SINGH VS STATE Of U.P

Author: Avika Shree,

Jamia Millia Islamia, Delhi

Bench: K. Ramaswamy, Faizan Uddin, B.N. Kirpal

CASE NO.:

Appeal (civil) 12122 of 1995

PETITIONER:

CHAMELI SINGH

RESPONDENT:

STATE OF U.P.

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 15/12/1995

REALITIES OF THE CASE:

1. The appellants, in this case, were the proprietors of the terrains in Plot No. 16 situated alongside various other terrains. The land was acquired for the purpose of providing housing to Dalits, Clans, and the poor. They were informed through distribution in the State Paper under section 4 (1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 on 23-7-1983, and the announcement under Area 6 was also published simultaneously, shedding the order under Area 5-A. However, the authorities failed to adhere to both pre-notice and post-war procedures while settling and distributing the notice. As a result, the appellants challenged the validity of the notice and appealed to the High Court through a Unique Leave Request.

2. The land was procured to address the pressing need for safe and secure housing for underprivileged communities, specifically Dalits, clans, and impoverished individuals who are often overlooked and neglected. The acquisition of this land signifies a commitment to promoting social equality and uplifting those who have been historically marginalized. The plan is to develop sustainable housing solutions that not only provide a roof over their heads but also offer access to necessary amenities such as clean water, sanitation facilities, and healthcare services. This initiative aims to promote a better standard of living and improve the overall well-being of these communities.

3. On the 23rd of July in the year 1983, the concerned individuals were informed about the acquisition of their land through a formal notification issued under section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. Simultaneously, a notice was published under section 6, which stated that the order under section 5-A was being revoked. This implies that any objections or concerns that the affected parties may have had under section 5-A were no longer valid.

4. The notice settlement and distribution process was hindered by a significant delay caused by a lack of proper communication channels between the relevant authorities. The issue stemmed from a failure to implement effective measures both before and after the warning was issued. As a result, the entire process was deferred, causing inconvenience and frustration for all parties involved.

5. The appellants utilized a meticulous and thorough approach to investigate the legitimacy of the notice they had received. They conducted a comprehensive analysis of the notice, scrutinizing all relevant details and verifying its authenticity. They then proceeded to challenge the validity of the notice by submitting a Unique Leave Request to the High Court, which served as a means to present their case and seek further clarification. This methodical approach was taken to ensure that all legal procedures were followed to the letter and that the appellants' rights were protected.

ISSUES:

• Whether the request passed disregards Article 21 of the constitution of India?

APPELLANT CONTENTION:

1. The argument presented in this context is that the cautionary notice, which was issued under Section 17(4) of the law, lacks any legal merit. The primary reason cited for this contention is that the location in question does not contain any unproductive or farmable terrain. The argument is further supported by an in-depth analysis, which highlights the lack of any actionable offense or violation of the law on the said site. Therefore, it can be inferred that the cautionary notice lacks any enforceability and holds no legal standing in the present scenario.

2. The appellants have put forward an argument that discarding the request under Segment 5-An is not legitimate. According to them, the land was acquired for providing houses to Planned Stations, but they believe that there is no seriousness on the part of the authorities to take ownership of the said land. They further contend that the request made under Segment 5-An should not be dismissed without due consideration of all the relevant factors.

3. The appellants additionally battled that in every one of the acquisitions for lodging reasons directing a request under Segment 5-An ought to be the standard and getting rid of such request ought to be excellent and just in uncommon cases like those covered by Area 17(2).

4. It was at long last contended by the appellants that Procurement of the land denies the proprietor of his wellspring of business cherished under Article 21 of the Constitution which can't be denied by exposing the proprietor of the method for occupation, viz., the land by turning to necessary obtaining.

RESPONDENT CONTENTION:

1. The respondents concurred that there was a pre and post notice defer with respect to the officials to finish and distribute the warning, yet the respondents contended under the steady gaze of the court that as expressed by this court-Bigger the postponement, more prominent be the direness and hence assuming that the necessities of individuals are met the activity taken was legitimate.

2. Further, the respondents contended that The State would use cash to alleviate the woeful lodging condition in which they live by giving good lodging convenience and Abetter clean circumstances and that the dormancy with respect to the officials for pre and post-warning deferral wouldn't deliver the activity of the ability to conjure desperation proviso invalid on that record.

3. According to their argument, the State exerted its power to claim a notable portion of public space and proceeded to obtain the land in question. This acquisition was purportedly carried out for a valid reason, as deemed by the government. The warning that accompanied this process was deemed lawful by those making the argument.

JUDGMENT:

The pinnacle court seat containing K. RAMASWAMY and FAIZAN UDDIN and B.N.

KIRPAL held the accompanying:

1. The High Court held that insofar as the unhygienic circumstances and lodging needs of Dalits, Clans, and the poor are not tackled, the direness proceeds to remain alive and the Public authority, based on material, sacred and worldwide commitments, having sized up desperation, the Court, not being a re-appraising discussion, wouldn't upset the discoveries except if the court convincingly finds the activity of the power mala fide which for this situation it doesn't.

2. It was held that the option to live ensured in any cultivated society suggests the right to food, water, a nice climate, training, clinical consideration, and a safe house. Right to protect incorporates a satisfactory residing spot, protected and respectable design, perfect and good environmental factors, adequate light, unadulterated air and water, power, disinfection, and other city conveniences like streets and so forth. To bring the Dalits and Clans into the standard of public life, giving these offices and open doors to them was held to be the obligation of the State as essential to their fundamental human and sacred privileges.

3. The decision of the High Court was unequivocal in its assertion that the right to self-defense when utilized as a fundamental imperative to protect one's life and dignity, ought to be considered as a basic human right that is guaranteed by the Constitution. The Court's ruling serves as a strong precedent for all future cases involving the interpretation of this critical right. It underscores the importance of upholding this right, which is essential for ensuring the safety and security of every individual in society.

LAW & ORDER:

The Hon'ble Zenith Court of India conducted a thorough and meticulous analysis of the legal arrangement that was under scrutiny. With great attention to detail, the court evaluated the provisions in question and determined that they were consistent with the fundamental right to life and personal liberty, which is safeguarded by Article 21 of the Constitution of India. Furthermore, the court recognized that this fundamental right includes the right to self-defense, which is a crucial aspect of protecting one's own life and liberty. The court's examination of the legal framework was exhaustive, leaving no stone unturned in ensuring that the rights of citizens were fully protected under the law.

CONCLUSION:

The judgment pronounced by the High Court in a specific case has brought to the forefront the immense significance of the Right to Life and the Right to Protection. The Court has emphasized that these fundamental rights must be given the highest priority and protected at all times, even if an action is taken in line with another fundamental right. This means that any action taken must not violate the Right to Life and Protection, which are fundamental rights guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. The ruling serves as a crucial reminder of the need to protect and uphold basic human rights, ensuring that they are equally accessible to all individuals, regardless of the circumstances. It is an essential step towards ensuring that the rights of every citizen are safeguarded and that they can live their lives with dignity and respect.