Back
1984 Supreme(HP) 47
High Court Of Himachal Pradesh
P.D.DESAI,H.S.THAKUR
JAU RAM - Appellant
Versus
STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH - Respondent
C.W.P. No. 248 of 1984
Decided On : 06/27/1984
For the Petitioner:Petitioner is present In person. For the Respondent(s):Shri P. N. Nag, Advocate General.
An authority, who deprives a person of his property under the compulsive force of law, cannot sit tight and neglect to perform its duty to award compensation within a reasonable time except at its own risk and cost.
Headnote:
LAND ACQUISITION - COMPENSATION - DELAY IN PAYMENT - SPECIAL COMPENSATION AWARDED - PRINCIPLES - LAND ACQUISITION ACT, 1894, SECTIONS 4, 6, 11, 18.
Fact of the Case:
Petitioner's property was notified for acquisition in 1978, declaration under Section 6 was made in 1978, and the award under Section 11 was made in 1984. Possession was taken in 1972, but compensation was not paid until 1984. Petitioner filed a writ petition alleging gross apathy and negligence by the authorities.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that there was gross apathy and negligence on the part of the authorities, resulting in the delayed payment of compensation. The court also found that the petitioner had been deprived of the user and/or usufruct of his property for a period of 12 years, for which he had been awarded interest at the rate of 6% per annum only.
Issues: Whether the petitioner was entitled to special compensation for the delayed payment of compensation and the hardship and harassment suffered by him.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the petitioner was entitled to special compensation, in addition to the compensation awarded under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The court relied on the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in Ram Pal Singh v. Union of India and others, and Devaki Nandan Prasad v. State of Bihar and others, wherein compensation was awarded in different contexts and circumstances but on being found that the legitimate dues (pensionary benefits) were not paid for an unduly long period and the litigant was subjected to undeserved want and harassment.
Final Decision: The court directed the State Government to pay the petitioner an additional sum of Rs. 4,000/- by way of special compensation. The court also directed that a copy of the judgment be forwarded to the Chief Secretary to the State Government for initiating action against the defaulting officer(s).
P. D. Desai, C. J.- Rule. To be heard to-day.
2. The learned Advocate General waives service of the Rule on behalf of the respondents.
3. The petitioner is an 82 years old man whose property situate in village Pulbahal, Tehsil Chopal, District Shimla, was notified for acquisition by a notification published on January 7, 1978 under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). The requisite declaration under Section 6 was made by a notification published on August 26, 1978. The award under Section 11 was made on June 20, 1984. A copy of the award has been placed on the record of this proceeding and it contains a recital that the possession of the property was admittedly taken in the year 1972. Under what circumstances the possession was taken nearly six years before the property was even notified for acquisition is not clear.
4. Since the petitioner was not awarded compensation, although possession was taken from him as far back as 1972, he sent an application to the Chief Minister on May 25, i9&4 and endorsed a copy of the said application to one of us (Chief Justice). In the copy so endorsed, a prayer was made at the foot that justice be rendered to him by ordering early payment of compensation because he was deprived of his property on which there were apple trees and thereby deprived of his source of livelihood and still no compensation was paid to him since long. In the application, the applicant mentioned that in order to obtain compensation, he had made repeated efforts, that he had to travel on foot a distance of 80 kilometers from Pulbahal to Theog in the last decade from time to time, that the case papers were sent by the Executive Engineer, Theog Division to the Superintending Engineer, II Circle, Shimla, that he was being informed that the papers were not traceable and that, therefore, his compensation could not be finalised, that he was thus being sent from pillar to post, that in his old age the strain was telling on his health and that he be awarded compensation at the earliest. In light of the facts and circumstances of the case as disclosed in the application, it was registered as a writ petition and it was listed for preliminary hearing on June 6, 1984. Notice was ordered to issue on the petition on the same day and it was made returnable today. Having issued Rule, we have taken up the case for hearing today. Since the petitioner is present in person, we have heard him and verified the facts.
5. On behalf of the respondents, an affidavit-in-reply has been filed by the Superintending Engineer, II Circle, Shimla. The substance of the affidavit is that as per the records, the property of the petitioner was acquired by the end of 1972 for the construction of a road from Neri to Phulbahal and the construction was completed by the end of 1972. The property so acquired consisted of land and house. The Payment of compensation could not be made because the papers were not traceable as the area in which the petitioners property was situate was transferred from Solan Circle to Shimla Circle. The award had since been made on June 20, 1984 and the payment of compensation has been released I with interest at the rate of 6 per cent per annum from the date of dispossession. Be it stated that the awarded amount aggregates Rs. 3,575/-with solatium and interest at the rate of 6 per cent per annum from 1972 to 1984.
6. The case discloses gross apathy and negligence on the part of the authorities concerned with the acquisition proceedings. Besides, it also reveals an unexplainable feature, namely, taking over of possession six years before the initiation of the acquisition proceedings. Although admittedly the petitioner was dispossessed as far back as 1972, compensation was not determined and paid to him till 1984. Meanwhile, the petitioner, who is in old man living in an interior region, was driven from pillar to post and had to undergo considerable hardship and harassment including coveri
