Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2004 DIGILAW 387 (ALL)

Awadh Narain v. State of U. P.

2004-02-25

MARKANDEY KATJU, R.S.TRIPATHI

body2004
ORDER : M. Katju, R.S. Tripathi, JJ. In this case on 31.10.2000 learned standing Counsel was granted one month's time to file counter-affidavit and the Petition was directed to be listed in December, 2000. Thereafter on 23.1.2004 learned standing Counsel was granted one month's further time to file counter-affidavit but on counter-affidavit has been filed so far. 2. It is deeply distressing to note that despite several opportunities granted by the Court to file counter-affidavit in a large number of cases no counter-affidavit is forthcoming. In this case time was granted to file counter-affidavit more than three years ago but no counter-affidavit has been filed and instead today learned standing Counsel has prayed for further time to file counter-affidavit. We are not inclined to accept this prayer. 3. Heard learned Counsel for the Petitioner and learned standing Counsel. 4. It is alleged in para 2 of the Petition that the Petitioners are poor farmers having small holdings and are residents of village Chak Churaman Kanitar, pargana Jhusi, tehsil Phoolpur, district Allahabad. True copy of the khatauni is Annexure-1 to the writ Petition. 5. It is alleged in para 4 of the Petition that the Junior Engineer, P.W.D., Allahabad, came to the site on 23.2.1999 and informed the Petitioners that a road is proposed to be built over the Southern portion of the Petitioners' plot and construction will be started after some time. The Junior Engineer came again on 3.9.2000 along with his contractors and labourers and directed them to start digging on the plot of the Petitioners and to cut the standing crop. The Petitioners immediately rushed to the office of the Executive Engineer and enquired about the position of their lands, whether it has been acquired under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act or some other Statute. It is alleged in para 5 that they were informed that the acquisition proceeding could not be initiated so far with regard to the agricultural holding of the Petitioners. The construction of the road is being made under the political pressure of the leaders and the possession of the Petitioners' land has been taken forcibly without paying any compensation to the Petitioners and without adopting the procedure of law. Petitioners made a representation on 6.9.2000 (Annexure-2) but to no avail. 6. The construction of the road is being made under the political pressure of the leaders and the possession of the Petitioners' land has been taken forcibly without paying any compensation to the Petitioners and without adopting the procedure of law. Petitioners made a representation on 6.9.2000 (Annexure-2) but to no avail. 6. It is alleged in para 7 of the writ Petition that the Petitioners were orally informed that the aforesaid plots were neither acquired nor any compensation has been paid. It has also been intimated that there is no acquisition proceeding and there was no notification under Sections 4 and 6 of the said Act. Petitioners have also not been paid compensation. 7. In para 8 of the writ Petition it is alleged that the Petitioners approached the District Magistrate, Allahabad through a representation dated 11.4.2000 alleging that illegal action has been taken against them and forcible possession of the land has been taken without any notification under Sections 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act and without paying any compensation. A true copy of the representation is Annexure-3 to the writ Petition. It is alleged in para 9 of the writ Petition that the District Magistrate, Allahabad, showed his inability to take any action because the matter is initiated by the local M.L.A. 8. Since these allegations are un-rebutted we have to treat them it as correct. 9. This country is governed by the rule of law and no authority can act except in accordance with law. If somebody's land is to be acquired it has to be done in accordance with the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act or some other statute. 10. Learned standing Counsel submitted that there were some Government orders for acquiring the land. In our opinion no land can be acquired on the basis of Government orders or other Administrative orders. There has to be statutory backing for such action. 11. Since the allegation that the land has been acquired without complying with the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act or any other Act is un-rebutted in our opinion the action of the Respondent is wholly illegal and in violation of Article 300A of the Constitution which states "No person shall be deprived of his property save by authority of law." 12. In our opinion, the word 'law' in Article 300A means statutory law and not Administrative orders or Executive instructions. In our opinion, the word 'law' in Article 300A means statutory law and not Administrative orders or Executive instructions. Hence no one can be deprived of his property except in accordance with the procedure laid down in some Statute vide Bishan Das and Others Vs. The State of Punjab and Others, AIR 1961 SC 1570 : (1962) 2 SCR 69 . The aforesaid decision no doubt was given when Article 19(1)(f) of the Constitution, which gives the fundamental right to the property, was in force. However, in our opinion the legal position will not be different so far as the present case is concerned because now the right to property is contained in Article 300A. The Respondent have not been able to show that they took action in accordance with any Statute. 13. We therefore, direct that the possession of the land in question be restored forthwith to the Petitioners. The Respondent shall also pay exemplary cost of Rs. 1.00 lakh (Rupees one lakh only) to the Petitioners for depriving them of their land illegally and in such an arbitrary and high handed manner. The payment shall be made within one month. Petition is allowed. 14. Let a copy of this order be made available to the learned Counsel for the parties on payment of usual charges, if possible, by tomorrow.