Back
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
R. V. Raveendran and A. K. Patnaik, JJ.
State of U.P. and Ors.
Versus.
Jasvir Singh and Ors.
C.A. No. 10061 of 2010 (Arising out of SLP(C) No. 29901/2010)
Decided On: 26.11.2010
(b) Constitution of India – Article 226 – High Court Judges routinely and frequently requiring presence of senior officers – Unnecessary and unwarranted show or exercise of power should be avoided – Requiring presence of the senior officers of the government in court should be last resort, in rare and exceptional cases – Court should desist from calling senior officers for all and sundry matters – That would amount to abuse of judicial power. (Para 7, 8, 9)
(2007) 14 SCC 94 – Relied upon
CA No. 10087-10090 of 2010 – Referred
Facts of the case:
In regard to acquisition of the lands of 45 Respondents under notifications dated 18.8.1981 and 14.11.1981 issued under Section 4(1) and Section 6 of Land Acquisition Act, 1894, the LAO had made an award offering a compensation of ` 12000/- per acre which was increased to ` 17000/-per acre by the Reference Court, and to ` 30,000/- per acre by the Allahabad High Court. On further appeal the Supreme Court set aside the judgment of the High Court and remanded the matter to the High Court for fresh decision on merits in regard to quantum and statutory benefits, in accordance with law. This Court also observed that since the appeals were old, the High Court will have to take steps to dispose the appeals expeditiously. The appeals (FA No. 880 of 1993 and FA No. 401 of 1998) are still pending consideration by the High Court.
The Respondents thereafter filed a writ petition seeking a direction for issue of a fresh notification under Sections 4 and 6 of the Act, after setting aside the earlier notifications under Sections 4(1) and 6 of the Act. They also sought a direction to the Appellant to pay mesne profits and damages with interest, after adjusting the amount under the award already made, from the date of taking possession (19.9.1986) till date of issuance of fresh notification under Section 4(1) of the Act. The Respondents thereafter filed two applications for amendment of prayers seeking a direction for determination of market value as on the date of final award after a fresh notification and not with reference to the notification dated 18.8.1991.
The Division Bench apparently suggested to the state government that it should settle the claim of the Respondents. There was resistance from the state government. This led to series of interim orders by the High Court.
High Court directed the Principal Secretary (Finance) and Principal Secretary (Revenue) of the Government of U.P., to show cause as to why interest at the rate of 9% per annum shall not be charged and the same be recovered from their personal salary to the extent of 50% each on the payments allegedly delayed by them
Finding of the Court:
Impugned order deprecated,
Result:
Impugned order set aside
JUDGMENT
R.V. Raveendran, J.
1. Leave granted. Heard.
2. In regard to acquisition of the lands of 45 Respondents under notifications dated 18.8.1981 and 14.11.1981 issued under Section 4(1) and Section 6 of Land Acquisition Act, 1894 ('Act' for short), the LAO had made an award offering a compensation of ` 12000/- per acre which was increased to ` 17000/-per acre by the Reference Court, and to ` 30,000/- per acre by the Allahabad High Court. On further appeal by the Respondents, this Court by order dated 12.9.2005 set aside the judgment dated 29.1.2004 of the High Court and remanded the matter to the High Court for fresh decision on merits in regard to quantum and statutory benefits, in accordance with law. This Court also observed that since the appeals were old, the High Court will have to take steps to dispose the appeals expeditiously. We are informed that the appeals (FA No. 880 of 1993 and FA No. 401 of 1998) are still pending consideration by the High Court.
3. The Respondents thereafter filed a writ petition (No. 77449 of 2005) seeking a direction for issue of a fresh notification under Sections 4 and 6 of the Act, after setting aside the notifications dated 18.8.1981 and 14.11.1981 under Sections 4(1) and 6 of the Act. They also sought a direction to the Appellant to pay mesne profits and damages with interest, after adjusting the amount under the award already made, from the date of taking possession (19.9.1986) till date of issuance of fresh notification under Section 4(1) of the Act. The Respondents thereafter filed two applications for amendment of prayers seeking a direction for determination of market value as on the date of final award after a fresh notification and not with reference to the notification dated 18.8.1991.
4. In the said writ proceedings, the Division Bench of the High Court apparently suggested to the state government that it should settle the claim of the Respondents. There was resistance from the state government. This led to series of interim orders by the High Court. We may refer to them to understand the background in which the impugned order was made.
4.1) We may begin by extracting the directions issued on 19.5.2010.
The grievance of the Petitioners is that possession over the land of the Petitioners has been taken over by the Respondents authority without authority of law.
This Court had directed to settle the matter outside the Court. In compliance of the Court's order, the State Government constituted two committees of which first was headed by the Collector of the district concerned, who after determining gave his report and has recommended a rate, which was acceptable to the Petitioner. The second committee which was headed by Divisional Commissioner of the division concerned also gave his report and has recommended a rate, which too was acceptable to the Petitioner. Thus, it is contended that the rate recommended by both the committees is acceptable to the Petitioner.
We, however, direct the Respondents-State Government to take a decision on the report as recommended by both the committee within a period of one month from the date of presentation of a certified copy of this order.
(Emphasis supplied)
4.2) When the matter thereafter came up on 5.7.2010, the High Court made the following order:
List/put up on 12.7.2010.
On that day, the Principal Secretary, Public Works Department, Govt. of U.P. Lucknow shall appear to show cause as to why our order dated 19.5.2010 has not been complied with by accepting the rates given by the Collector and Divisional Commissioner. An affidavit shall also be filed by him by that date.
(Emphasis supplied)
In compliance with the said order, an affidavit was filed on behalf of Principal Secretary, P.W.D. explaining that as the District Magistrate and the Commissioner had arrived at the rate on the basis of sale deed dated 25.09.2008 by ignoring the fact that the notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act had been issued on 18.08.1981, the said reports
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
