Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 200 (ALL)

LALLU RAM v. STATE OF U. P.

2015-02-02

ASHWANI KUMAR MISHRA

body2015
JUDGMENT Hon’ble Ashwani Kumar Mishra, J.—The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging an order dated 23.12.2014, passed by the Special Judge, (E.C. Act)/Additional District Judge, Allahabad, whereby the application filed by the petitioner for payment of compensation as per the provisions of Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (hereinafter referred to as Act of 2013), by virtue of Section 24(1)(a) thereof, has been rejected. 2. The facts, relating to matter in issue, are rather disturbing and have been noticed in detail by a Division Bench of this Court in its judgment dated 14.10.1999, in Durga Prasad and others v. State of U.P. and others, 1999 (37) ALR 764. 3. It appears that for construction of Gyanpur Pump Canal System, which included main canal, distributaries and minors project, land of large number of farmers was utilized without undertaking any valid land acquisition proceedings and making payment of compensation in lieu thereof. The construction work for the project started in the year 1978 and was spread in four districts of Allahabad, Varanasi, Mirzapur and Sant Ravidas Nagar. Proceedings for requisition of land under U.P. Rural Development Act (Requisition of Land) Act, 1948, had been initiated, but even such proceedings were not concluded. It was observed by the Division Bench that since the project was not for any temporary purpose, therefore, the proceedings under the aforesaid Requisition Act was not a valid proceeding. A report from Central Bureau of Investigating was called for in the matter. After taking note of the report submitted by the investigating agency, it was found that 2650 persons had not been paid compensation, despite the fact that their land had been walked into, and possessed illegally by the State, for the public project in question, which was duly sanctioned by the Planning Commission of India and was to be executed by the State of U.P. Faced with the aforesaid factual scenario, suggestion by the State to ensure ex-post facto proceedings formalized by the State Government, announcing its intention to acquire land under the Land Acquisition Act, 1984, (hereinafter referred to as Act of 1984) for a public project, was termed ‘ridiculous’ by the Division Bench. However, as the land had already been utilized for the project, the Division Bench of this Court found that “only the modalities for making a calculation for payment of compensation to agriculturists whose land has been possessed by the State can be borrowed to make the best out of a bad situation.” Ultimately, following directions were issued in the matter on 14.10.1999 : 21. ————. There are no land acquisition proceedings which have been shown by the respondents to the Court. There is no award. The District Judge, in any case, is an authority referred to under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The State respondents, that is, the official concerned of the revenue shall on or before 15 November, 1999, file a statement, in so far as the petitioners are concerned, before the District Judge, Allahabad, along with the money for deposit. The State respondents will file a calculation before the District Judge, in reference to the strict criteria provided for calculating compensation under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. This will mean the value of the land, that is, the market value. The petitioners will have an opportunity to object to the calculations which will be filed by the State respondents. Thereafter, the District Judge, Allahabad, will examine the matter and modulate the compensation in accordance with the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The District Judge, Allahabad, will take into account the other factors for computing compensation as are prescribed under the Act, like solarium, interest, etc. The amount which will be worked out by the District Judge, Allahabad, as these matters have seen long delay, shall be the final amount and he will require the State Government to deposit this amount. When the final compensation is being computed by the District Judge, Allahabad, he will require the balance amount, if any, to be deposited in his Court within thirty days, of its being indicated. If the need so arises, the decision of the District Judge shall be executed as a decree. 22. In so far as other agriculturists are concerned, these are spread out in five districts. The same modalities will be adopted by the District Judges concerned. The agriculturists have been identified in the CBI report and the State respondents are possessed of sufficient information on lands used, occupied and possessed by the State for the public project, aforesaid. 22. In so far as other agriculturists are concerned, these are spread out in five districts. The same modalities will be adopted by the District Judges concerned. The agriculturists have been identified in the CBI report and the State respondents are possessed of sufficient information on lands used, occupied and possessed by the State for the public project, aforesaid. Likewise, the State respondents shall file a calculation chart with respect to these agriculturists before the District Judges, concerned, on or before 1 December, 1999 along with the money as a deposit. Likewise, as indicated (to District Judge, Allahabad), the other concerned District Judges, shall work out the final amount towards compensation and require the State Government to deposit it by indicating the balance, if any, within thirty days. The decision of the District Judges, concerned shall be executed as a decree.” 4. In due compliance of the directions issued by the Division Bench in Durga Prasad’s case (supra) on 14.10.1999, the office of the Collector through Chief Revenue Officer, Allahabad, forwarded a letter to the District Judge, Allahabad, on 27.11.1999, furnishing details of the claim and the basis of calculation for payment of damages/compensation to the petitioner along with list of other tenure-holders. Petitioner’s name appears at serial No. 21, 23 & 24 of the chart annexed with the aforesaid communication. 5. Petitioner contends that he moved an objection against the calculation furnished by the office of the Collector in November, 1999, which remains pending before the District Judge, Allahabad. In such proceedings, an objection has been filed by the petitioner on 17.11.2014, stating that no award has been made, in respect of the acquisition proceedings in question, under Section 11 of the Land Acquisition Act, therefore, the provisions of the Act of 2013 have come into being and the petitioner is liable to be paid compensation, in accordance with the provisions of Section 24(1)(a) and 26(1)(a) of the Act of 2013. 6. Petitioner thereafter approached this Court by filing writ petition No. 66943 of 2014, which has been dismissed on 10.12.2014, with the observation that petitioner is free to take recourse to appropriate proceedings, in accordance with law. 6. Petitioner thereafter approached this Court by filing writ petition No. 66943 of 2014, which has been dismissed on 10.12.2014, with the observation that petitioner is free to take recourse to appropriate proceedings, in accordance with law. The order dated 10.12.2014 is reproduced : “Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and having perused the material placed on record, we are unable to find any reason to issue any writ, order or direction in this matter, where the petitioner’s matter is said to be pending before the Additional District Judge, Court No. 8, Allahabad pursuant to the directions of this Court in Writ-C No. 32729 of 1998 in the order dated 14th October, 1999; and where the petitioner is said to have made an application on 19.11.2014 for consideration of the case with reference to the Right to Fair Compensation & Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013. It is rather strange that the application is said to have been made before the Court concerned on 19th November, 2014 and immediately the next day i.e., 20th November, 2014, the petitioner would choose to file this writ petition in this Court, seeking directions to the Court concerned for taking decision in the matter within stipulated time without even the Learned Judge having been given the reasonable time after moving of the application on 19th November, 2014. No writ, order or direction to be issued in this matter at this stage, the instant writ petition stands dismissed. However, the petitioner is free to take recourse to the appropriate proceedings in accordance with law.” 7. Petitioner’s application thereafter has been considered by the Additional District Judge, Allahabad. It has been observed that the amount of compensation together with the computation, containing basis for its determination, has been received by the District Judge, Allahabad. While some of the objections, filed by other similarly placed persons, have already been decided, but still some objections remain pending, in such circumstances, it has been observed that the provisions of the Section 24(1)(a) of the Act of 2013 will have no applicability in the pending proceedings and consequently, the application has been rejected vide order impugned. 8. While some of the objections, filed by other similarly placed persons, have already been decided, but still some objections remain pending, in such circumstances, it has been observed that the provisions of the Section 24(1)(a) of the Act of 2013 will have no applicability in the pending proceedings and consequently, the application has been rejected vide order impugned. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that no award under Section 11 of the Land Acquisition Act has been made and the proceedings under the Act of 1894 since have not been formalized, therefore, the provisions of the Act of 2013 have come into being and consequently, petitioner is entitled to payment of compensation under the Act of 2013. Reliance has been placed upon the judgment of the Apex Court in Pune Municipal Corporation and another v. Harkchand Misrimal Solanki and others, 2014 (103) ALR 212 (SC), as well as the Division Bench judgment of this Court in Keshram Singh and another v. State of U.P. and others, 2014(3) ADJ 619 (DB). On the strength of the aforesaid judgments, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is entitled to payment of compensation under the Act of 2013 and the rejection of application by the Court below is misconceived. 9. Per contra, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents- authorities submit that admittedly, no land acquisition proceedings have been undertaken in the facts of the present case and the determination of damages/compensation alone was required to be made under the Division Bench judgment of this Court dated 14.10.1999 in Durga Prasad’s case (supra), following the principles of Act of 1894, and the State authorities have already deposited the amount required thereunder with the District Judge, Allahabad. It is submitted that the petitioner has acquiesced to the Division Bench judgment and has filed an objection against the deposit of amount by the Collector, which is yet to be decided, in accordance with the observations made by the Division Bench. In view of it, it is contended that the rejection of application filed by the petitioner does not suffer from any error of law, which may require interference by this Court. 10. I have considered the respective submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the materials placed on record before me. In view of it, it is contended that the rejection of application filed by the petitioner does not suffer from any error of law, which may require interference by this Court. 10. I have considered the respective submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the materials placed on record before me. The facts admitted on record are that land belonging to the petitioner was utilized for a public project without undertaking any valid acquisition proceedings and paying compensation, in accordance with law. The state action, therefore, in taking possession of the land was found to be in teeth of the provisions of Article 300-A of the Constitution of India. It was found that land has been utilized in the year 1979 but no compensation, as was required by law, had been paid to the affected tenure-holders. In the backdrop of the aforesaid facts, this Court issued directions to redress the injury caused to the petitioner. The observations made in para 21 & 22 of the Division Bench judgment have already been extracted above. It is to be observed that the relief, to which the petitioner and other similarly placed persons were entitled to in law, was specified. A direction was issued to the official concerned of the State to file a statement before the District Judge, specifying the computation, following the principles of Act of 1894, along with deposit of money. The determination thereafter of the compensation payable to the tenure-holder was required to be made by the District Judge, Allahabad. It is apparent from the above that no formal proceedings under the land acquisition has been drawn and only the principles of the Act of 1894 were pressed into service to determine payment of compensation as per market rate, so as to make the State Action just and legal. Petitioner has acquiesced to the directions issued by the Division Bench. The entitlement of the petitioner to receive compensation, therefore, has to be with reference to the provisions of the Act, which stood on the date of passing of the Division Bench judgment i.e. 14.10.1999. For any delay in payment of compensation, the petitioner would be entitled to interest etc. under the provisions of the Act of 1894. 11. The entitlement of the petitioner to receive compensation, therefore, has to be with reference to the provisions of the Act, which stood on the date of passing of the Division Bench judgment i.e. 14.10.1999. For any delay in payment of compensation, the petitioner would be entitled to interest etc. under the provisions of the Act of 1894. 11. So far as the provisions of the Act of 2013 and the judgments relied upon by learned counsel for the petitioner are concerned, this Court is of the opinion that no acquisition under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, has been resorted to in the facts of the present case. Only the provisions of the Act 1894 as it stood on the date of judgment had been adopted and would be applicable to redress petitioner’s grievance. Provisions of the Act of 2013, in such circumstances, would have no application in the facts of the present case. The Court below, therefore, has committed no error in rejecting the application of the petitioner for payment of compensation under the Act of 2013. In such situation, the provisions of the Act of 2013 are not attracted in the facts of the present case. Section 24(1)(a) of the Act of 2013 reads as under : “24. Land acquisition process under Act No. 1 to 1894 shall be deemed to have lapsed in certain cases.— (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, in any case of land acquisition proceedings initiated under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (1 of 1894),- (a) where no award under Section 11 of the said Land Acquisition Act has been made, then, all provisions of this Act relating to the determination of compensation shall apply; (Emphasis supplied by me) 12. A bare perusal of the provision itself goes to show that it applies to a case where land acquisition proceedings have been initiated under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, and no award has been made under Section 11 of the Act 1894. Admittedly, in the facts of the present case, no acquisition proceedings under the Act of 1894 have been initiated and undertaken, therefore, the provisions of Section 24(1)(a), from the bare reading of the statute itself, would have no application. 13. Admittedly, in the facts of the present case, no acquisition proceedings under the Act of 1894 have been initiated and undertaken, therefore, the provisions of Section 24(1)(a), from the bare reading of the statute itself, would have no application. 13. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Court below has observed that an award under Section 11 has been made, which is factually incorrect, and since the award has not been made under Section 11, therefore, the provisions of the Act of 2013 would be applicable. This Court finds substance in the argument that no award has been made under Section 11 and observation of the Court below is not correct, in this regard, but that appears to be based upon misconstruction of records itself. In the absence of any acquisition proceedings undertaken under the provisions of Land Acquisition, the making of award under Section 11 or applicability of Section 24(1)(a) does not arise. The challenge made to the order impugned, therefore, fails. 14. However, it is surprising to note that proceedings, pursuant to the orders passed by the Division Bench dated 14.10.1999, have remained pending for over 15 years. This delay assumes significance in the backdrop of the fact that the petitioner and other tenure-holders had been dispossessed unlawfully about 35 years ago, and the compensation amount has not yet reached the tenure-holders and proceedings before the District Judge are yet to be concluded. It would, therefore, be appropriate to direct the District Judge, Allahabad, to take cognizance of pendency of matter, and forthwith expedite the proceedings, if possible on day to day basis, without granting adjournments to either of the parties, except upon payment of cost and conclude it, at the earliest possible. 15. Subject to the observations made above, this Court finds no good ground to interfere with the order of the Additional District Judge, Allahabad, dated 23.12.2014 and the writ petition consequently is dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs. —————