JUDGMENT : SRI ANANDA SEN, J. Heard the learned counsel for the parties. 2. Ms. Nancy Sahay, Deputy Commissioner, Hazaribagh, Sri Vidya Bhushan Kumar, SDM, Hazaribagh, Sri Shailendra Kumar Lal, Municipal Commissioner, Hazaribagh and Ramesh Kr. Suri, EE HMC, Hazaribagh appear before this Court pursuant to earlier order passed by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court. 3. This writ petition is being disposed of at this stage itself. 4. Both the petitioners are brothers, have approached this Court for the following relief(s):- (i) For quashing of the last notice issued vide memo No. 2335/Sa.Pra dated 18.8.2022 (Annexure-8) whereby the respondent authorities informed the petitioners about construction of drainage in their land. (ii) For direction upon the respondents to restrain the construction of drainage over the raiyati land of the petitioners in utter violation of Jharkhand Municipal Act, 2011. (iii) For direction upon the respondents to construct the drainage after acquisition of land and following the procedure of law and grant compensation accordingly. (iv) For direction upon the respondents particular the respondent No. 4 to stop the construction work of drainage till acquisition of land and to stay further construction work of drainage inside the house of the petitioners. 5. Admittedly, without any land acquisition and without paying any compensation, a public drain has been constructed over the land of this 2. petitioners. The petitioners are not opposing the construction of the drain but their only grievance is that they should have been paid appropriate compensation before the State entered over the land of the petitioners, upon which the drainage system was constructed. 6. Today, the counsel for the respondents hands over a copy of assessment order by which, the compensation has been assessed at Rs.13,04,413.00, which is to be paid to both the petitioners. This assessment is dated 27.1.2024. A copy of the notice has also been handed over by the counsel for the State, which is dated 28.01.2024, in respect of acquisition of the portion of the land upon which, the drain has been constructed. 7. From the aforesaid fact, I find that it is an admitted case that the drainage system has been constructed over the land of the petitioners without paying any compensation and without even acquiring the same. The petitioners have been deprived of their property without the law being followed. 8. 7. From the aforesaid fact, I find that it is an admitted case that the drainage system has been constructed over the land of the petitioners without paying any compensation and without even acquiring the same. The petitioners have been deprived of their property without the law being followed. 8. The concept that the acquisition of land should be conducted in accordance with the due process of law is rooted in the fundamental principles of justice, equity and good conscience. While the right to property is no longer considered a fundamental right, it is crucial to note that the right against deprivation of property, unless in accordance with the procedure established by law, continues to be a constitutional right under Article 300-A. State must protect citizens and respect their Constitutional right to property, enshrined under Article 300A of the Constitution of India. The State’s duty is to act responsibly and ethically in matter of land acquisition and it should treat justly and fairly throughout the process. The state, as a custodian of Citizens’ rights, must adopt the process which aligns with the constitutional provisions and their principles. 9. The Supreme Court in the case of Sukh Dutt Ratra v. State of H.P. reported in (2022) 7 SCC 508 has highlighted the significance of Article 300A and held that forcible dispossession of private property of a person without following due process of law, is violative of both human & Constitutional Right. It is held in the para 13, 14, 15 & 25 as under:- 13. While the right to property is no longer a fundamental right [“Constitution (Forty-fourth Amendment) Act, 1978”], it is pertinent to note that at the time of dispossession of the subject land, this right was still included in Part III of the Constitution. The right against deprivation of property unless in accordance with procedure established by law, continues to be a constitutional right under Article 300-A. 14. It is the cardinal principle of the rule of law, that nobody can be deprived of liberty or property without due process, or authorisation of law. The right against deprivation of property unless in accordance with procedure established by law, continues to be a constitutional right under Article 300-A. 14. It is the cardinal principle of the rule of law, that nobody can be deprived of liberty or property without due process, or authorisation of law. The recognition of this dates back to the 1700s to the decision of the King's Bench in [Entick v. Carrington, 1765 EWHC (KB) J98 : 95 ER 807] and by this Court in [Wazir Chand v. State of H.P., (1955) 1 SCR 408 : AIR 1954 SC 415 ] Further, in several judgments, this Court has repeatedly held that rather than enjoying a wider bandwidth of lenience, the State often has a higher responsibility in demonstrating that it has acted within the confines of legality, and therefore, not tarnished the basic principle of the rule of law. 15. When it comes to the subject of private property, this Court has upheld the high threshold of legality that must be met, to dispossess an individual of their property, and even more so when done by the State……… 25. Concluding that the forcible dispossession of a person of their private property without following due process of law, was violative [Relying on Hindustan Petroleum Corpn. Ltd. v. Darius Shapur Chenai, (2005) 7 SCC 627 : 2005 Supp (3) SCR 388; N. Padmamma v. S. Ramakrishna Reddy, (2008) 15 SCC 517 ; Delhi Airtech Services (P) Ltd. v. State of U.P., (2011) 9 SCC 354 : (2011) 4 SCC (Civ) 673 : (2011) 12 SCR 191 and Jilubhai Nanbhai Khachar v. State of Gujarat, 1995 Supp (1) SCC 596 : 1994 Supp (1) SCR 807.] of both their human right, and constitutional right under Article 300-A, this Court allowed the appeal. We find that the approach taken by this Court in Vidya Devi [Vidya Devi v. State of H.P., (2020) 2 SCC 569 : (2020) 1 SCC (Civ) 799] is squarely applicable to the nearly identical facts before us in the present case. Furthermore, the Apex Court in the case of Vidya Devi v. State of H.P. reported in (2020) 2 SCC 569 has held in the para 12.2, 12.3, 12.4, 12.6, 12.9, & 12.10 as under:- 12.2. Furthermore, the Apex Court in the case of Vidya Devi v. State of H.P. reported in (2020) 2 SCC 569 has held in the para 12.2, 12.3, 12.4, 12.6, 12.9, & 12.10 as under:- 12.2. The right to property ceased to be a fundamental right by the Constitution (Forty-Fourth Amendment) Act, 1978, however, it continued to be a human right [Tukaram Kana Joshi v. MIDC, (2013) 1 SCC 353 : (2013) 1 SCC (Civ) 491] in a welfare State, and a constitutional right under Article 300-A of the Constitution. Article 300-A provides that no person shall be deprived of his property save by authority of law. The State cannot dispossess a citizen of his property except in accordance with the procedure established by law. The obligation to pay compensation, though not expressly included in Article 300-A, can be inferred in that Article. [K.T. Plantation (P) Ltd. v. State of Karnataka, (2011) 9 SCC 1 : (2011) 4 SCC (Civ) 414] 12.3. To forcibly dispossess a person of his private property, without following due process of law, would be violative of a human right, as also the constitutional right under Article 300-A of the Constitution. Reliance is placed on the judgment in Hindustan [Hindustan Petroleum Corpn. Ltd. v. Darius Shapur Chenai, (2005) 7 SCC 627 ], wherein this Court held that: (SCC p. 634, para 6) “6. … Having regard to the provisions contained in Article 300-A of the Constitution, the State in exercise of its power of “eminent domain” may interfere with the right of property of a person by acquiring the same but the same must be for a public purpose and reasonable compensation therefor must be paid.” 12.4. In [N. Padmamma v. S. Ramakrishna Reddy, (2008) 15 SCC 517 ], this Court held that: (SCC p. 526, para 21) “21. If the right of property is a human right as also a constitutional right, the same cannot be taken away except in accordance with law. Article 300-A of the Constitution protects such right. The provisions of the Act seeking to divest such right, keeping in view of the provisions of Article 300-A of the Constitution of India, must be strictly construed.” 12.6. In [Jilubhai Nanbhai Khachar v. State of Gujarat, 1995 Supp (1) SCC 596] , this Court held as follows: (SCC p. 627, para 48) “48. The provisions of the Act seeking to divest such right, keeping in view of the provisions of Article 300-A of the Constitution of India, must be strictly construed.” 12.6. In [Jilubhai Nanbhai Khachar v. State of Gujarat, 1995 Supp (1) SCC 596] , this Court held as follows: (SCC p. 627, para 48) “48. … In other words, Article 300-A only limits the powers of the State that no person shall be deprived of his property save by authority of law. There has to be no deprivation without any sanction of law. Deprivation by any other mode is not acquisition or taking possession under Article 300-A. In other words, if there is no law, there is no deprivation.” 12.9. In a democratic polity governed by the rule of law, the State could not have deprived a citizen of their property without the sanction of law. Reliance is placed on the judgment of this Court in [Tukaram Kana Joshi v. MIDC, (2013) 1 SCC 353 : (2013) 1 SCC (Civ) 491] wherein it was held that the State must comply with the procedure for acquisition, requisition, or any other permissible statutory mode. The State being a welfare State governed by the rule of law cannot arrogate to itself a status beyond what is provided by the Constitution. 12.10. This Court in [State of Haryana v. Mukesh Kumar, (2011) 10 SCC 404 : (2012) 3 SCC (Civ) 769] held that the right to property is now considered to be not only a constitutional or statutory right, but also a human right. Human rights have been considered in the realm of individual rights such as right to shelter, livelihood, health, employment, etc. Human rights have gained a multi-faceted dimension. 10. This Court underscores the imperative for the State, as a welfare State governed by the rule of law, to meticulously adhere to the stipulated procedures for acquisition, requisition, or any other permissible statutory mode, especially in matters involving the property rights of its citizens. The foundational principles of the Constitution dictate that the State cannot arrogate to itself a status beyond what is provided by the Constitution. Failing to adhere to these basic elements demonstrates a significant lapse in discipline from the executive side. The Constitution and statutes neither condone nor permit such abuse of legal processes. The foundational principles of the Constitution dictate that the State cannot arrogate to itself a status beyond what is provided by the Constitution. Failing to adhere to these basic elements demonstrates a significant lapse in discipline from the executive side. The Constitution and statutes neither condone nor permit such abuse of legal processes. The actions undertaken by the concerned department, in this case, reflect a glaring inadequacy in following the due process of law. It is imperative for the State to ensure that its officers strictly adhere to the basic principles enshrined in the Constitution. Non-compliance with established procedures not only undermines the rule of law but also jeopardizes the fundamental rights and interests of the citizens, thereby eroding the very foundation upon which a democratic society is built. 11. Adhering to Rule of law not only upholds the constitutional framework but also reflects the state's commitment to maintaining a harmonious balance between its authority and the protection of individual rights. Upholding the sanctity of property rights not only preserves the essence of individual freedoms but also contributes to the overall well-being and stability of a democratic society. 12. In the instant case, the entire activity, which has been done by the State, is by way of post facto approval, which should not have been in this case, where the property of the petitioners has been utilized by the State. 13. Now, since the respondents are ready to pay the amount of compensation, which has been assessed, I direct them to pay the amount to the petitioners. It is made clear that if the petitioners have any objection in respect of quantum of compensation, they may dispute the same before the appropriate authority, after receiving the assessed amount of compensation. 14. So far as the action of the respondents is concerned i.e. entering into the property of the petitioners and making a drainage system over the same, without following the process of law and without paying compensation, I direct the State to pay a cost of Rs.1,00,000/-(rupees one lac ) to the petitioners within four weeks from today. The said cost will be recovered from the erring officers due to whose fault, without making any acquisition and without taking appropriate recourse of law, the petitioners were ousted from a portion of their property. 15. The said cost will be recovered from the erring officers due to whose fault, without making any acquisition and without taking appropriate recourse of law, the petitioners were ousted from a portion of their property. 15. The Deputy Commissioner, Hazaribagh will conduct an enquiry and identify the Officials on whose fault, the land of the petitioner was used and drain has been constructed without making any acquisition and paying compensation. The entire cost will be equally recovered from the salary of those persons and will be intimated to the Accountant General, State of Jharkhand. 16. Let the entire compensation be paid to the petitioners within twelve weeks from today. 17. Let a copy of this order be communicated to the Accountant General, State of Jharkhand for taking necessary action. 18. Further appearance of the Deputy Commissioner, Hazaribagh as well as other officers is dispensed with for the present. 19. Accordingly, this petition, stands disposed of.