those claimants who were seeking statutory interest from the date of taking possession. Some similarly situated land owners had filed writ petition before High Court, one of which was allowed by the High Court with the direction to the State to acquire the land of the writ petitioners under the Act with all consequential benefit. Thereafter, the appellants before the Supreme Court of India had filed writ petition before the High Court in the year 2001, seeking compensation or initiation of acquisition proceeding. The said writ petition was dismissed. On such factual matrix, the Supreme Court of India had arrived at a conclusion that the appellants were illegally dispossessed from their land and took note that the State had, in a clandestine and arbitrary manner, tried to limit disbursal of compensation as required by law, only to those for which it was specifically prodded by Courts, rather than to all those who were entitled. Accordingly, it was held that Article 31, at the time of cause of action, was violated. The Supreme Court of India had taken note of various decisions mentioned therein, including the decision in the case of State of Uttar Pradesh v. Manohar, (2005) 2 SCC 126, wherein the name of the aggrieved person was deleted from revenue records leading to his dispossession from the land without compensation. Moreover, the decision rendered in the case of Tukaram Kana Joshi (supra), was also discussed and by invoking extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 136 and 142 of the Constitution of India, directed the State to treat the subject land as a deemed acquisition, and to appropriately disburse compensation.
