The land of the petitioner has been taken over by the respondents for construction of road without resorting to any procedure under the law. Being aggrieved by such action of the respondents, the petitioner has filed this writ petition with the prayer for issuing a writ in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents not to dispossess the petitioner from his "bhumidhari" land and in the alternative, to award compensation along with interest as per the present value of the land.
We have heard Sri Amrendra Pratap Singh along with Sri Triloki Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents. Pleadings between the parties have been exchanged and with their consent, this writ petition is being disposed of at this stage.
The case of the petitioner has by and large been admitted by the respondents in their counter affidavit wherein, in paragraph 4, it has been stated that for construction of approach road connecting the bridge made over river "Tons", the land of various tenure holders was taken and in 20% of the cases, with consent of the tenure holders. What is surprising is that in the said paragraph the respondents state that "the tenure holders including the petitioner were informed on 13.9.2010 that compensation at market circle rate would be paid to them. Out of plot nos. 23 (273) and 276 of the petitioner 0.068 + 0.023 = 0-091 hectare land has been taken by consent of the petitioner and a cheque of Rs. 40,950/- at the present circle rate was offered to the petitioner which he refused to accept." Photocopy of the cheque dated 15.3.2012, said to have been tendered to the petitioner, has been filed as Annexure-C.A.1; a list of tenure holders who have accepted the compensation at the circle rate has been filed as Annexure-C.A. 2; and some sale deeds executed by the tenure holders in favour of the State-respondents have been filed as Annexures-C.A. 3, 4, 5 and 6.
Interestingly, neither any consent of the petitioner nor agreement with the petitioner has been filed nor any sale deed is said to have been executed by the petitioner in favour of the respondents. What is also interesting to note is that in the said paragraph the respondents state that the petitioner was informed on 13.9.2010 that compensation would be paid at the market circle rate. The respondents thus admit that no process under the Land Acquisition Act or any other law for acquiring such land had been initiated. By giving information regarding compensation, in the manner as is said to have been given to the petitioner appears to be a command or direction to the tenure holders that they shall be paid compensation at the 'market circle rate' which the respondents have themselves determined. It is noteworthy that for more than a year after the decision is said to have been taken on 13.9.2010, no compensation as suggested also was paid. In September 2011 this petition was filed and the offer to pay has also been given during the pendency of this petition and just before the filing of the counter affidavit by the respondents.
A land-owner cannot be deprived of his land, except in accordance with law. The high-handed attitude adopted by the respondents in first taking over the land of the petitioner and thereafter commanding the petitioner to accept the alleged "market circle rate" as determined by the respondents themselves, is highly unreasonable. If the land is needed for any purpose of the State Government, it could have acquired the same under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and now under the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (hereinafter referred to as the "Act of 2013"). If the action of the respondents, which they have themselves admitted, is condoned and the respondents are permitted to take the land of any land-owner and thereafter offer the price of the "market circle rate", it would amount to land grabbing at the hands of the "mighty" State. Such action of the respondents taking over the land of private land owners cannot be permitted by courts of law, as the rule of law has to be maintained by all persons, and more so by the State authorities.
In similar facts, the Apex Court in the case of Bhimandas Ambwani vs. Delhi Power Co. Ltd. 2013 (2) AWC 1795, wherein land owner was dispossessed without resorting to any valid law for acquisition of land and thereafter a residential colony was constructed on the said land, has, after finding that it was difficult to restore back the possession to the land owner, held that the respondents would make an award treating section 4 notification under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 as on the date of the judgment, which in that case was 12.2.2013. We are of the view that the petitioner herein would also be entitled to similar relief.
Though the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 has been repealed after coming into force of Act of 2013, with effect from 1.1.2014, yet considering the facts and circumstances of this case and keeping in view that the land of the petitioner was taken in the year 2009, when the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 was in force, we direct that proceedings for awarding compensation be taken, treating section 4 notification under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 to have been issued as on this date i.e. 27.5.2014 and to make the award under the provisions of the Act of 1894, after hearing the parties and in accordance with law, within a period of six months from today. The petitioner shall also have the liberty to file a Reference under section 18 of the Act and pursue the remedies available to him under the said Act of 1894. Needless to say that the petitioner shall be entitled to all other statutory benefits also.
This writ petition stands allowed to the extent indicated above.
In the peculiar facts of this case where the land of the petitioner is said to have been taken from him in the year 2009 without following the process of law and as per the counter affidavit itself, the petitioner was informed on 13.9.2010 that compensation at the market circle rate would be paid to him whereas the cheque is said to be offered after nearly two years on 15.3.2012, which all go to show that the respondents had not even proceeded efficiently even after depriving the petitioner of his land, we are of the view that the petitioner would be entitled to payment of cost, which we assess at Rs. 25,000/-. The respondent no.2-District Magistrate, Allahabad shall ensure that the said cost is paid to the petitioner within two months from today, failing which the petitioner shall be entitled to file an application before this Court for issuance of further directions.
Dt: 27.5.2014 dps (Mohd. Tahir, J) (Vineet Saran, J)