State
of U.P.& Ors Vs. Manohar [2004] Insc 760 (15 December 2004)
Shivaraj V. Patil & B.N. Srikrishna B.N. Srikrishna, J.
The respondent filed a writ petition before the High Court of judicature of
Allahabad seeking a writ of Mandamus to the appellant- State of Uttar Pradesh
and its officers to determine the compensation in respect of his land bearing
plot no. 3 Ka (0.29 acres), 4 (0.37 acres) and 3 kha (1.01 acres) in village
Chakiya Bhagwanpur, Tehsil Lalganj, District Azamgarh, which, according to the respondent,
had been taken away forcibly without following any process of law. It was the
specific case of the respondent that he had been dispossessed from his land and
the land had been taken by the appellants without payment of any compensation
and further that the appellants had put up building and structures on the land
sometime in 1955 and that despite repeated appeals made by him nobody was
prepared to pay compensation. He enclosed along with the writ petition a letter
no.
73/S.T.D.M-91 dated 9/10.4.91 written by the Collector, Azamgarh to the
Sepcial Land Acquisition Officer Azamgarh to the following effect:
"Please refer to the application of Shri Manohar s/o Raghunath, Mauja
Kharga Bhagwanpur, Block Lalganj (enclosed). He has stated that the compensation
for the land acquired for development Block, Lalganj has not yet been paid even
though the construction of the Development Block has been done in the year
1955.
After looking into matter action be taken to make payment of the
compensation and I may be informed about the position." This was replied
to by the Special Land Acquisition Officer by his letter dated 5.8.91 in which
he says thus :
"Please refer to this officer letter no.1159/Aa.S.L.A.D.(J.V.) dated
23.3.1991; and letter no.28(2) eight S.L.A. O.(J.V.) dated 16.4.91 on the above
subject under which Shri Manohar Ram r/o Chakia Bhagwanpur Pargana Devgaon
Tehsil- Lalganj Special Power of Attorney Shrilal s/o Bhoval made a complaint
to the collection for non-payment of the compensation of the land acquired for
construction of Development Block, Lalganj. The B.D.O. Lalganj has informed
that the Development Block, Lalganj was established on 16.1.1955 at 1.533 acres
of land.
Enclosing an attested copy of the Khatauni of 1377 F with his Application
dated 20.6.91 Shri Manohar has given an application that his land no. 3ka,
3kaa, 4ka has not been acquired but during consolidation operation the Block
Office being already in existence there, his name was deleted by the Department
of consolidation. The copy of the intkhab Khatauni was verified from the papers
preserved by the Record Room and the entries of the Khatauni were found to be
correct. Even in the office there is no reference of any proposal for land
acquisition.
Thus from the records and circumstantial evidence it is evident that the land
of Development Block, Lalganj has not been acquired and on the basis of the
local position during consolidation operation the Asstt. Consolidation Officer
stated the name of the office of Development Block in Records. Under these
circumstances, it is requested that the compensation of the land of development
block office Lalganj may be paid by mutual settlement.
Under the above circumstances, this office has no concern with this
case." The grievance of the respondent before the High Court was that his
name was high-handedly deleted from the revenue record and the revenue record
thereafter showed the name of the appellants. He was dispossessed from the land
and no compensation was paid, nor were any steps taken in law for acquiring the
land. The respondent demanded an amount of Rs.10 lakhs as compensation with
interest from the date of dispossession.
The appellants appeared through counsel before the High Court and produced
certain records. In view of the correspondence, to which we have referred,
between the officers of the State, the High Court came to the conclusion that
the case made out by the respondent was acceptable and that the State should be
directed to take steps to pay compensation to the petitioner within 3 months
with appropriate interest in accordance with the law. The High Court
contemptuously dismissed the arguments of the counsel for the appellant that
the petitioner had already been paid the compensation but that the records
evidencing such payment were not available as they had been 'weeded out' due to
the delay on the part of the respondent in approaching the Court.
As a matter of fact, the appellants were unable to produce even a scrap of
evidence indicating that the land of the respondent had been taken over or
acquired in any manner known to law or that he had ever been paid any
compensation in respect of such acquisition. That the land was thereafter
constructed upon, is not denied.
Having heard the learned counsel for the appellants, we are satisfied that
the case projected before the Court by the appellants is utterly untenable and
not worthy of emanating from any State which professes the least regard to
being a welfare State. When we pointed out to the learned counsel that, at this
stage at least, the State should be gracious enough to accept its mistake and
promptly pay the compensation to the respondent, the State has taken an
intractable attitude and persisted in opposing what appears to be a just and
reasonable claim of the respondent.
Ours is a constitutional democracy and the rights available to the citizens
are declared by the Constitution.Although Article 19(1)(f) was deleted by the
44th Amendment to the Constitution, Article 300A has been placed in the
Constitution, which reads as follows:
"300A- Persons not to be deprived of property save by authority of law No
person shall be deprived of his property save by authority of law." This
is a case where we find utter lack of legal authority for deprivation of the
respondent's property by the appellants who are State authorities. In our view,
this case was an eminently fit one for exercising the writ jurisdiction of the
High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution. In our view, the High Court
was somewhat liberal in not imposing exemplary costs on the appellants. We
would have perhaps followed suit, but for the intransigence displayed before
us.
In the result, we dismiss the appeal with exemplary costs of Rs.25,000/-.
The compensation payable as directed by the High Court, together with the costs
directed by us, shall be paid within a period of 3 months from today.
The respondent shall also be paid interest on the compensation amount from
22.2.1999 till date of payment @ 9% per annum.
A compliance report shall be filed by the appellants with the Registrar
General of this Court. The appellants are charged personally with the duty of
ensuring compliance with the order of this Court failing which they shall be
answerable to this Court in contempt jurisdiction.
Copy of this order shall be transmitted to the Chief Secretary, State of Uttar Pradesh for his information and appropriate action.
Back