The State cannot dispossess a citizen of his property without following due process of law and paying adequate compensation.

JUDGMENT :

(Salil Kumar Rai, J.)

The petitioner is the Bhumidhar of Plot No. 437 (area 0-3-0) and Plot No. 438 (area 0-7-5) situated in Village Lakhanpur alias Abhayanpur, Tehsil Bhadohi, District Sant Ravidas Nagar. The total area of the aforesaid plots is 10 bissa 5 dhur (0-10-5). The said fact is supported by the Khatauni of the plots annexed as Annexure No. 1 to the writ petition. In 1998, the State Public Works Department, Gyanpur, District Sant Ravidas Nagar, Bhadohi took possession of the aforesaid plots for construction of Morwa Bridge on Bhadohi -Varanasi Road without acquiring the plots and without following the procedure prescribed in the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as, ‘Act, 1894’) or in any other relevant statute. No compensation was paid to the petitioner for the aforesaid plots despite repeated representations by the petitioner to the State Government and its officers. The petitioner filed C.M. Writ Petition No. 17681 of 2002 in this Court which was disposed of by order dated 29.4.2002 directing the Collector/District Magistrate, Sant Ravidas Nagar to decide the representation submitted by the petitioner for payment of compensation. In response to the order dated 29.4.2002, the Special Land Acquisition Officer, Sant Ravidas Nagar, District Bhadohi, vide order dated 11.8.2003, summoned a report from the Tehsildar, Sant Ravidas Nagar, Bhadohi and the Executive Engineer, State Public Works Department. A report dated 5.9.2003 was submitted before the Special Land Acquisition Officer noting that Morwa Bridge and road had been constructed by the Public Works Department over the whole of Plot Nos. 437 and 438. Consequently, the total area of Plot Nos. 437 and 438, of which the petitioner was the Bhumidhar, was in possession of the Public Works Department and the petitioner stood dispossessed from the plots. Subsequently, the Special Land Acquisition Officer vide his letter dated 16.9.2003 requested the Executive Engineer, State Public Works Department to pay compensation to the petitioner. An order dated 5.11.2003 was also passed by the Collector holding the Public Works Department responsible to pay compensation to the petitioner.

2. However, despite the aforesaid orders and letters written by different officers, the petitioner was not paid any compensation. Hence, the present petition was filed praying for a mandamus directing the respondent no. 3, i.e., the Executive Engineer, Public Works Department (P.W.D.) to pay compensation to the petitioner for the plots at the present market rate along with solatium, interest at the rate of 12% and additional interest and also for payment of special damages to the petitioner for not paying compensation to her till date.

3. On 28.11.2008, the following order was passed by the Court :

“Despite the orders of this Court dated 20.11.2008 the learned standing counsel is not in a position to explain as to why compensation in terms of the order dated 5.11.2003 passed by the District Magistrate has not been paid to the petitioner who is a poor widow.

In the given circumstances we have no alternative but to direct the respondent No. 3 to be present before this Court along with the admitted amount of compensation to be paid to the petitioner and to explain why it has not been paid to her on the next date fixed.

List it on 12.12.2008.”

4. Subsequently, the case was again taken up on 12.12.2008 when the Executive Engineer, P.W.D. who was personally present in the Court pleaded his inability to pay compensation to the petitioner because there was no sanction by the State Government. The Court on 12.12.2008 passed the following order : -

“Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri C.K. Rai, learned Standing Counsel for the State of U.P.

Petitioner’s land was acquired without taking recourse to the provisions of Land Acquisition Act as a result where of petitioner approached to this court by filing writ petition wherein direction was issued pursuant to which Distri