KUSUM PRABHA Vs. STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Article 21 of the Constitution of India guarantees to the citizens of India that "No person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to procedure established by law". This Article, though couched in negative language, but has attained innumerable positive attributes with the development of law by various authoritative pronouncements of various High Courts and the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India. Right to life enshrined in Article 21 has been held to mean something more than survival or animal existence (State of Maharashtra Versus Chanderbhan, 1983 AIR(SC) 803 , to include all those aspects of life which go to make a man's life meaningful, complete and worth living (Maneka Gandhi Versus Union of India, 1978 AIR(SC) 597 Board of Trustees of the Port of Bombay Versus Nadkarni Dilip Kumar Raghvendra,1983 AIR(SC) 1097 and right to live with human dignity (Francis Coralie Mullin Versus Union Territory Delhi, Administrator, 1981 AIR(SC) 746. Right to development has also been declared as a component of right to life and liberty within the meaning of Article 21. Right to development cannot be treated as a mere right to economic betterment or cannot be limited to a misnomer to simple construction activities. It rather, includes the whole spectrum of civil, cultural, political and social process for the improvement of people's well being and realization of their full potential and construction of dams and other mega projects could very well be treated as integral component for development (N.D.Jayal Versus Union of India, 2004 9 SCC 362).

(2.) However, construction of such projects has its ill effects in the form of displacement of residents, disruption of means of livelihood, deprivation of homes, lands and places of business and the ilk. Therefore, it has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in N.D.Jayal's case that rehabilitation of the oustees is a logical corollary of Article 21 of the Constitution of India. While legislation like Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, 'the 1894 Act') empower the State to acquire land of a citizen for development purposes, Article 21 of the Constitution of India enjoins upon it a corresponding duty to take steps for the rehabilitation of oustees of land acquisition schemes.

(3.) Smt. Gian Devi, predecessor-in-interest of the petitioner, was owner of the land measuring 56 Kanals 01 Marla being half share of land measuring 112 Kanals 2 Marlas comprised in Khewat No.1394/1730 and 1393/1729 bearing Khasra No.4682 (8-16), 4683 (32-18), 4686 (13-12), 4686 (7-1), 4687 (17-19), 4688 (24-2), 4689 (7-9) and 4661/1(0-5) situated at Hisar.