Case BriefsHigh Courts

Chhattisgarh High Court: Recently, High Court was hearing a petition from two brothers who were owners of a land which they wanted to sell to one person and for the same, had approached the Arpa Special Area Development Tribunal seeking No Objection Certificate, but denied by the authority for the reason that the said lands have been included in planning area and are required for construction of road under PPP project. The petitioners had approached the High Court under Article 226 challenging the rejection.

The petitioners contended that the right to property is a constitutional right under Article 300-A of the Constitution of India and there is no law prohibiting such transfer by the petitioners and respondent by its executive instruction cannot restrict the petitioners’ right to transfer their immovable property.

The Bench of Sanjay K Agrawal, J. observed that the town development scheme had not been notified under S. 50 (7) of the Chhattisgarh Nagar Tatha Gram Nivesh Adhiniyam 1973 and therefore, no restriction could be made to the owner’s right to transfer the land under S. 53 of Chhattisgarh Nagar Tatha Gram Nivesh Adhiniyam, 1973.

The Court after utmost circumspection of the records observed that right to property is a human right as well as a constitutional right referring to Indian Handcrafts Emporium v. Union of India, (2003) 7 SCC 589. Thus, it held that the right to acquire, hold and dispose of the property has ceased to be a fundamental right under the Constitution of India, but it continues to be a legal or constitutional right that no person can be deprived of his property save and except by and in accordance with law and further explained that the word “law” under Article 300-A of the Constitution of India would mean a validly enacted law meaning thereby a just, fair and reasonable law referring to Delhi Airtech Services (P) Ltd. v. State of U.P., (2011) 9 SCC 354 . The Court finally directed the tribunal to grant NOC to the owners of the land within three weeks. [Narayan Prasad v. State of Chhatisgarh,  2017 SCC OnLine Chh 1226, decided on 26.10.2017]

Case BriefsSupreme Court

Supreme Court: “Non-disabled people do not understand disabled ones.” This is what the bench of Dr. A.K. Sikri and R.K. Agrawal, JJ said when it was deciding the matter relating to de-boarding of the petitioner from the plane of a private airline for being disabled. The Court awarded a sum of Rs. 10,00,000 as damages to be payable to the petitioner for the mental and physical suffering experienced by her and also unreasonable discrimination against her.

In defence of such an unreasonable action on part of the crew members, the airline had taken the stand that the person having cerebral palsy would, in emergency situation, not be able to respond to the safety instructions and she is a risk to herself and potential danger to the lives of co-passengers also. The Court said that this act was contrary to the Civil Aviation Requirements, 2008 which prohibits the airlines from refusing to carry a person with disability or person with reduced mobility. It was further said that the manner in which she was treated while de-boarding from the aircraft, depicts total lack of sensitivity on the part of the officials of the airlines.

The petitioner, an Indian citizen with cerebral palsy, is an eminent activist and a Board member of the National Trust, an organization of the Government of India, set up under the National Trust for the Welfare of Persons with Autism, Cerebral Palsy, Mental Retardation and Multiple Disabilities, Act, 1999. [Jeeja Ghosh v. Union of India, 2016 SCC OnLine SC 510, decided on 12.05.2016]