Taking serious note of top officers of the Irrigation and Urban Development departments disobeying court orders to pay compensation to a land owner for acquiring his plots, the Allahabad High Court has given a month’s time to the UP Chief Secretary, heads of both departments, and the Prayagraj District Magistrate (DM) to file affidavits showing full compliance of a 2016 HC order. Failing this, it said all shall be personally present in court to face framing of contempt charges.
The bench has been hearing a contempt application filed by Vinay Kumar Singh, who approached the court after the government did not pay compensation for acquiring three of his plots at Bhairopur village, in Handia area of Prayagraj, despite the HC issuing an order to this regard to the department concerned on July 27, 2016.
According to the original petition, the Irrigation Department had acquired the applicant’s plots through a notification published in July and October, 1977. The award and the supplementary award regarding compensation for land acquired were declared in February and August 1982, according to the applicant.
The bench of Justice Salil Kumar Rai observed, “It appears from the pleadings and the documents annexed with the affidavit of the parties, and also from previous orders of this court, that the plots were initially acquired for use by the Irrigation Department. The Irrigation Department could not utilise the plots, therefore, the plots were subsequently transferred to the Urban Development Department for construction of residences under Shri Kanshiram Ji Shahri Garib Awas Yojana. It is the claim of the petitioner/applicant that the plots remained unutilised and compensation was not paid to the petitioner/applicant till date.”
“It is a matter between two departments as to which department is liable to pay compensation… the applicant cannot be made… a shuttlecock by two departments and thrown… [from] one department to another for compensation,” the court observed.
“In fact, the aforesaid conduct of the officers reflects mal-administration on the part of the state government, which is not expected from the officers,” the court further stated.
Key observations
Issuing the direction recently, the bench went on to observe, “The land acquired under Act, 1894, or Act, 2013, vests in the State and it is the State which is primarily liable to pay compensation for the acquired land. In view of the aforesaid, and in the facts and circumstances of the present case, it would be the Chief Secretary, Government of Uttar Pradesh, who would be liable for contempt of this Court in case the order passed by this Court is not complied [with].”
Story continues below this ad
The court further observed, “Different departments of the State are constituted only for administrative convenience and distribution of work to facilitate speedy and expeditious disposal of government work. The distribution of work between different departments of the state government cannot be used as a pretext to not implement the order of this Court… In case of any non-compliance because of any confusion in the administrative machinery of the state government, regarding the department or officer who is responsible to ensure compliance, [it] would make the highest officer of the State responsible and liable in contempt.”
The court also stated, “An order of a writ court passed against any officer of the State, unless it is an order against the said officer in his personal capacity, is an order to the officer concerned as a representative of the State. Any order to an officer of the State is an order to the State itself and all officers of the State, who in their official capacity have any role to ensure implementation of the order of this Court, are bound to comply with the order and ensure its compliance.”
The present case
The court observed that acquisition proceedings in respect of petitioner’s land had lapsed but despite repeated representations to the authorities concerned to release the plots, no action was taken.
The applicant, therefore, filed a writ in 2015. The State’s stand in the writ petition was that compensation payable to the petitioner/applicant was deposited in the government treasury because the applicant had refused to receive compensation.
Story continues below this ad
“This Court, vide its order dated 27.07.2016 passed in the writ petition, held that the acquisition proceedings relating to the plots of the petitioner shall be deemed to have lapsed under Section 24(2) of the Act, 2013, and, consequently, orders contrary to the aforesaid position were quashed and the writ petition was allowed,” the court observed.
The court further observed, “For reasons stated hereinafter, I find that the opposite parties, i.e., the different officers of the State Government, have knowingly and willfully disobeyed the order of this Court.”
“The non-compliance is intentional, conscious, calculated and a deliberate act with full knowledge of the consequences… a calculated measure with an intention to deprive the petitioner/applicant the fruits of his success in litigation against the State,” the court observed further.
It said in an order dated February 3, 2017, the court had granted further time to the State-respondents to comply with the order. “… The State and its officers again failed to comply with the order passed by this Court, and did not release the land of the petitioner/applicant, hence, the present contempt application was filed by the petitioner/applicant on 27.05.2017.”
Story continues below this ad
In the present case, the Special Leave Petition filed against the order dated July 27, 2016, was dismissed by the Supreme Court, the court stated.
