JUDGMENT : K. BABU, J. 1. The prayers in the Writ Petition are as follows: “1. Issue a writ of Certiorari for quashing EXBT.P14 calling records leading to it. 2. Issue a direction to the respondents 1 to 7 to pay fair Compensation to the petitioner, with 9% interest from the date of taking over possession of the entire land for the widening of the National Highway 212 forthwith. 3. Issue a direction to the respondents 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 & 7 to take immediate steps to speed up the payment of fair compensation to the petitioner, for his land taken over for the widening of the National High way 212 (now NH-766) under the Land Acquisition Act. 4. Issue a direction to the respondents to acquire the balance land 2.60 Ares under the Land Acquisition Act. 5. Issue a direction to the 1st respondent to conduct an enquiry by calling reports, regarding the illegal action of respondents 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 & 7 with regard to the taking over of the property of the petitioner, without his knowledge and consent. 6. Issue a direction to the respondents 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 & 7 to provide suitable land equal in extent to the petitioner in a commercial area. 7. Any other order or direction which is deem fit just and proper in the interest of justice.” (sic) 2. The petitioner is the absolute owner-in-possession of 45 cents of land comprised in Survey No. 1/1 of Puthuppady Village, Kozhikode Taluk. He acquired title and possession over the property as per ‘verumpattom’ sale deed executed on 24.05.2000. Thereafter, as per the proceedings of the Land Tribunal, Kozhikode, the petitioner obtained Ext.P2 Sale certificate in respect of the property. The petitioner effected mutation with respect to the property in his name. 3. The property lies on the western side of the 2nd and 4th curves (churam) of Thamarassery-Wayanad Road. In 2006, the National Highways Authority of India commenced the work of widening the road. For widening of the National Highway and for the geometrical improvements to bend Nos. 3, 5, 6, 7 and 8, respondent No. 3 made a request to the Forest Department to acquire the forest land. The petitioner understood that the Department of Forest approved the proposal. 4. The petitioner was employed in a Gulf Country. He is an illiterate man. For widening of the National Highway and for the geometrical improvements to bend Nos. 3, 5, 6, 7 and 8, respondent No. 3 made a request to the Forest Department to acquire the forest land. The petitioner understood that the Department of Forest approved the proposal. 4. The petitioner was employed in a Gulf Country. He is an illiterate man. While the road widening work was progressing, respondent Nos. 3 and 8 contacted the petitioner seeking his permission to use a portion of his land to store the construction materials on the side of the road. As per the request, the petitioner allowed them to store the construction materials on a lump sum payment of Rs.30,000/- as rent. The property was planted with 100 arecanut trees, 20 other trees, 2 jathi trees and 6 koko trees. All those trees were cut and removed. Respondent No. 8 had agreed that the materials would be removed when the work was over. 5. The petitioner returned from the Gulf country after a long period. When he returned, he found that the road was widened, taking a major portion of his property, without his knowledge, consent and authority. The petitioner approached respondent Nos. 2 to 6 and 8 and submitted a complaint about the unauthorized and illegal occupation of the land. None of those officials responded responsibly, 6. Thereafter, the petitioner filed an application before the Department of Revenue seeking a survey and fixation of the boundaries of his property as per the Kerala Survey and Boundaries Act, 1961. In response to the application, the Tahsildar concerned issued Ext.P7 reply stating that as the property of the petitioner has now become part of the National Highway, it was not possible to fix boundaries. Thereafter, the petitioner submitted Ext.P9 application before the District Collector, Kozhikode, requesting the Collector either to grant compensation to the land illegally acquired or to surrender the land. When there was no positive reply, the petitioner approached this Court filing W.P. (C) No. 32792 of 2019. As per judgment dated 18.02.2020, this Court directed the respondent-District Collector to conduct an enquiry based on Ext.P9 representation of the petitioner. Thereafter, when the District Collector failed to comply with the directions of this Court, the petitioner was compelled to file a contempt petition as COC No. 967 of 2020. As per judgment dated 18.02.2020, this Court directed the respondent-District Collector to conduct an enquiry based on Ext.P9 representation of the petitioner. Thereafter, when the District Collector failed to comply with the directions of this Court, the petitioner was compelled to file a contempt petition as COC No. 967 of 2020. When the contempt petition was moved, the District Collector, Kozhikode (respondent No. 4), passed Ext.P14 order declining the request of the petitioner. This order is under challenge in this Writ Petition. 7. I have heard Smt. P.K. Santhamma, the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader. 8. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has absolute title over the property. It is submitted that the Revenue and PWD authorities illegally encroached upon the property and made a major portion of it as part of the Highway. 9. The learned Government Pleader submitted that neither the Revenue authorities nor the PWD authorities encroached upon the property of the petitioner. The learned Government Pleader also submitted that the property that belonged to the petitioner has now become the part of the National Highway. He also added that the petitioner cannot raise a claim at this belated stage. 10. The learned Standing Counsel for the National Highways Authority of India (respondent No. 8) submitted that since the property claimed by the petitioner was on the side of the State Highway, the National Highways Authority of India is not bound to compensate, and it is for the State to compensate. 11. The title of the property claimed by the petitioner based on Ext.P1 title deed and Ext.P2 Sale Certificate has not been successfully refuted by the State and the National Highways Authority of India. Ext.P1 title deed specifically states that the petitioner had acquired title of 45 cents of land in Survey No. 1/1 of Puthuppady Village, Kozhikode Taluk through a verumpattom sale deed. As per Ext.P2, the Land Tribunal, Kozhikode, on 17.02.2005 issued a Sale Certificate in favour of the petitioner in respect of the entire 45 cents of land. 12. The boundaries and description of the property as per Ext.P1 read thus: Boundaries East - Nirath (Road) North - Property of Thampy West - Thodu South - Nirath and the property of Ahammed Description 45 cents of land within the above said boundaries in Re-survey No. 1/1 of Puthupady Village. 13. 12. The boundaries and description of the property as per Ext.P1 read thus: Boundaries East - Nirath (Road) North - Property of Thampy West - Thodu South - Nirath and the property of Ahammed Description 45 cents of land within the above said boundaries in Re-survey No. 1/1 of Puthupady Village. 13. The description of the property in the schedule attached to Ext.P2 Sale Certificate dated 17.02.2005 reads thus: District, Taluk and Village: Kozhikode, Kozhikode, Puthupady Survey No/Sub Division etc.: Re-survey No. 1/1, Puthupady Desom Extent: 45 cents Boundaries East - Nirath (Road) North - Property of Thampy West - Thodu South - Nirath and the property of Ahammed 14. It is evident that the property to which the Sale Certificate has been issued as per Ext.P2 is the property acquired by the petitioner as per Ext.P1. Ext.P3 is the Tax Receipt issued in favour of the petitioner by the Village Officer, Puthuppady. The Village Officer, on 06.10.2018, issued Possession Certificate (Ext.P4) stating that the petitioner was in possession of 45 cents of land in Re-survey No. 1/1 of Puthuppady Village. The Village Officer has also attached a sketch to Ext.P4, which makes it clear that the petitioner is the owner-in-possession of the property he claimed. 15. Admittedly, the National Highways Authority of India, commenced widening work of the Thamarassery-Wayanad Road in 2006. The State and the PWD authorities admitted that a sum of Rs.50,000/- was given to the petitioner as consolation through the contractor, to restrain him from preventing the widening work of the Highway. The definite stand of the State is that they have not acquired the property of the petitioner. The petitioner has pleaded that respondent No. 8 and the contractor, while he was working in Gulf, requested him to permit a portion of his property to be used for storing materials for the widening work of the road on a rent of Rs.30,000/-. Admittedly, the petitioner received a sum of Rs.30,000/-from the contractor. This amount was given to the petitioner as rent for using the land to store the materials. 16. It is profitable to extract the relevant portion of Ext.P14 order, which reads thus: 17. Admittedly, the petitioner received a sum of Rs.30,000/-from the contractor. This amount was given to the petitioner as rent for using the land to store the materials. 16. It is profitable to extract the relevant portion of Ext.P14 order, which reads thus: 17. On a perusal of the pleadings and the documents relied on by the petitioner, this Court comes to the following conclusions: (1) The petitioner had acquired absolute title and possession over 45 cents of land in Re-survey No. 1/1 of Puthuppady Village. (2) The petitioner had permitted respondent No. 2 to only use his land to store the materials for the construction work on a consideration of Rs.30,000/-. (3) The Revenue and PWD authorities encroached upon the property without his consent or knowledge and made the same part of the Highway without resorting to the procedure in accordance with law. 18. The unauthorised occupation of the land by the State and PWD is more evident from the admission made by the District Collector in Ext.P14 order that, through the contractor who had undertaken the work, a sum of Rs.50,000/ was given to the petitioner as a consolation to prevent him from taking any legal steps. Admittedly the State, PWD authorities or any other competent authorities have not granted any compensation to the petitioner for the acquisition of the land. 19. The private property or material resources of a citizen could be transformed into the property of the State or the community inter alia in the following ways: (a) by way of surrender or vesting of the property to the State by operation of law. (b) by way of assignment, donation, gift, creation of an endowment or public trust etc. in favour of the State. (c) by way of acquisition by the State or by any organ of the State. (d) by purchasing the property from the private person. 20. The modes mentioned above are illustrative and not exhaustive in nature. 21. In the present case, the State has no case that the property came to its possession by way of any of the modes mentioned above. 22. When private persons are deprived of ownership as well as the control of the property which belongs to them, they must be compensated justly and fairly. 21. In the present case, the State has no case that the property came to its possession by way of any of the modes mentioned above. 22. When private persons are deprived of ownership as well as the control of the property which belongs to them, they must be compensated justly and fairly. The petitioner has the constitutional right as provided under Article 300A of the Constitution not to be deprived of his property save by authority of law. The petitioner is, therefore, entitled to compensation in accordance with law. 23. A two Judge Bench of the Supreme Court in Kolkata Municipal Corporation v. Bimal Kumar Shah, 2024 INSC 435 considered the scope and ambit of Article 300A of the Constitution. 24. In Kolkata Municipal Corporation, the Supreme Court observed that the right to property under Article 300A may be seen as comprising of the following sub-rights which ensure that the procedure followed is just, fair and reasonable. The relevant observation is extracted below: “27. What then are these sub-rights or strands of this swadeshi constitutional fabric constituting the right to property? Seven such sub-rights can be identified, albeit non-exhaustive. These are: (i) duty of the State to inform the person that it intends to acquire his property - the right to notice, (ii) the duty of the State to hear objections to the acquisition - the right to be heard, (iii) the duty of the State to inform the person of its decision to acquire - the right to a reasoned decision, (iv) the duty of the State to demonstrate that the acquisition is for public purpose - the duty to acquire only for public purpose, (v) the duty of the State to restitute and rehabilitate - the right of restitution or fair compensation, (vi) the duty of the State to conduct the process of acquisition efficiently and within prescribed timelines of the proceedings - the right to an efficient and expeditious process and (vii) final conclusion of the proceedings leading to vesting - the right of conclusion.” 25. In State of Himachal Pradesh v. Upender Kumar in SLP (Civil) Diary No. 49057/2024, the Supreme Court held that although the right to property is no longer considered a fundamental right, it is still a constitutional right and the State cannot be permitted to acquire citizen’s land without paying appropriate compensation. 26. In State of Himachal Pradesh v. Upender Kumar in SLP (Civil) Diary No. 49057/2024, the Supreme Court held that although the right to property is no longer considered a fundamental right, it is still a constitutional right and the State cannot be permitted to acquire citizen’s land without paying appropriate compensation. 26. In Property Owners Association v. State of Maharashtra, 2024 SCC Online SC 3122, the Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court held that to hold that all private property is covered by the phrase “material resources of the community” and that the ultimate aim is state control of private resources would be incompatible with the constitutional protection extended to a citizen. 27. In the present case, the respondents did not follow any of the statutory requirements and procedures before acquiring the property of the petitioner without his consent, and has not been compensated. 28. Therefore, Ext.P14 order stands quashed. Respondent No. 4 is directed to consider and pass orders on Ext.P9, in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment. 29. The Writ Petition is allowed as above.