CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 9210 OF 2010(O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. DATE OF DECISION: September 22 , 2010. Parties Name Gurdip Singh and others ...PETITIONERS. VERSUS Union of India and another ...RESPONDENTS CORAM: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Jasbir Singh Hon'ble Mr. Justice Augustine George Masih. PRESENT: Mr. Gurdial Singh Jaswal, Advocate, for the petitioners. Mr. Jagdish Marwaha, Advocate, for respondent No. 1. Mr. Manohar Lall, Addl. A.G., Punjab, for respondent No. 2. JASBIR SINGH, J. (oral) JUDGMENT Cheques in the name of petitioners No. 3 and 8 have been handed over by counsel for respondent No. 2 to counsel for the petitioners today in Court. By filing this writ petition, notification issued on June 23, 2005, under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (in short the Act) CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 9210 OF 2010(O&M) -2- was impugned. Further challenge has been laid to the declaration issued under Section 6 of the Act on February 6, 2006. Award passed on June 6, 2007, is also under challenge. When notice of motion was issued in this case on May 19, 2010, following contention of counsel for the petitioners was noticed by this Court: “Learned counsel for the petitioners contends that the notification under Section 4 read with Section 17 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for brevity 'the Act') was issued on 23.6.2005 and declaration under Section 6 read with Section 17 of the Act was made on 6.2.2006. The estimated compensation of 80% has been disbursed to the petitioners and some others but no award has been announced determining the price of the land, although, notice under Section 9 of the Act was issued on 6.6.2007 and claimants were called for 20.2.2007 to determine the market price. Accordingly, prayer made is that the compensation be paid or in the alternative the notifications may elapse.” On July 13, 2010, this Court, after going through the contents of reply filed by respondent No. 2, noted that full amount of compensation has not been disbursed to the petitioners. The authorities were directed to make payment before the next date of hearing, failing which, it was ordered that the salary of the Chairman and Members of the Railway Board and Secretary of respondent No. 1 shall be attached and the matter was adjourned to July 29, 2010. Relevant portion of the order passed on July 29, CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 9210 OF 2010(O&M) -3- 2010, reads thus: “It is a fact that the possession of the land under acquisition was obtained by the State Authorities on 23.6.2007. They had constructed railway line thereon. Draft award dated 5.7.2007 was sent to the Deputy Commissioner for approval on 6.7.2007. Till the filing of this writ petition, as per admitted position, the approval was not given by the officer concerned. As per the information supplied by the State counsel, approval was granted only on 20.7.2010. It is very surprising and is not understandable as to how an officer whose duty is to look after the interest of general public, can sit over on such an important file which relates to acquisition of the land of poor farmers. It has also been intimated to us that the State of Punjab has sent a letter dated 20.7.2010 to the Railway authorities for release of an amount of Rs. 1,80,00,000/- towards balance amount to be paid to the land owners. Counsel for the Railways states that the entire amount stood already paid. After looking at the documents, we are not convinced with the objection raised, as per evidence on record, the Railways has paid only an amount of Rs. 10,73,41,750/- whereas as per award, the total amount to be paid to the land owners comes to Rs. 11,20,75,826/-. In view of the above, we can safely say that some more amount still remains to be paid by the Railway Authorities. Under the circumstances, we feel that it is an incumbent duty of the respondents to make payment to the right holders forthwith. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 9210 OF 2010(O&M) -4- We direct the Railway Authority- respondent No. 1 to release the amount as demanded by the State of Punjab for payment to be made to the land owners within 10 days from today. The State Government – respondent No. 2 shall then disburse this amount to the claimants within 10 days thereafter. It is made clear that if there is a non-compliance of the order passed by this Court, the Secretary, Ministry of Railways, Railway Bhawan, New Delhi, shall come present in Court on the next date of hearing. It is further made clear that if the payment is not made within the time stipulated, exemplary costs shall be imposed upon the Railway Authority – respondent No. 1. We had noticed earlier that the Deputy Commissioner, Roop Nagar, sat on the proposed draft award for about three years. Such an attitude is not appreciable. Under the circumstances, we direct the Chief Secretary, State of Punjab/ his nominee, to conduct an enquiry and give a finding as to who is responsible for this huge delay. The land owners whose land has been acquired cannot be made to wait for years together to get the payment. Enquiry report be submitted in this Court before the next date of hearing and it should be specifically mentioned as to who was responsible for not approving the draft award on time. On looking at the report any further action to be taken against the erring official will be suggested by this Court. Vide order dated 13.7.2010, we had specifically stated that if the payment is not made before this date, the salary of the Chairman and Members of the Railway Board and Secretary of CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 9210 OF 2010(O&M) -5- respondent No. 1 shall be attached. There is no compliance of the order passed. Accordingly, we direct that the salary for the month of July, 2010, (onward also) of the Chairman and Members of the Railway Board and Secretary of respondent No. 1 shall not be released till further orders. Adjourned to 20.8.2010. At this stage, it is further made clear that if the Railway Authority raises some dispute to release the amount aforestated, the State Government shall release this amount from its own funds and then claim it from the Railways within the stipulated time as mentioned above. Copy of this order be given dasti under the signatures of the Court Secretary of this Court.” In the meantime, the Railway authorities deposited the amount of compensation with the Land Acquisition Collector, Roop Nagar, which, as per order passed, was disbursed to some of the petitioners. Thirteen petitioners, to whom compensation amount could not be disbursed, were directed to appear before the Collector on August 25, 2010, at 10 AM. Thereafter amount of compensation remained to be disbursed to petitioners No. 3 and 8, cheques for which have been handed over to their counsel today in Court. In response to the order, passed by this Court on July 29, 2010, an enquiry for causing delay was conducted by the Secretary, Department of Public Works (B&R), Punjab. Relevant portion of the enquiry report dated August 12, 2010, reads thus: CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 9210 OF 2010(O&M) -6- “10. After having gone through the entire record of the case and the perusal of diary/ dispatch registers of all concerned offices, I have finally reached the following conclusions:- (i)Sh. Jasbir Singh dealing Senior Assistant working in B&R-3 Branch is primarily responsible for the delay and gross omission in dealing with the case notwithstanding his pleadings taken in his written-statement. He is one dealing official who remained posted on this seat before the draft award was received till this time. (ii)The Superintendents Incharge of the Branch, namely, Sh. Amritpal Singh, Smt. Tarlochan Dhir and Sh. Bakhshish Singh are guilty of negligence of supervision as it was also their primary duty to see the pendency of work in the branch and also to look into the day to day affairs of the branch. (iii)The very fact that the Sub Divisional Magistrate- cum- Land Acquisition Collector sent the Draft Award to the Deputy Commissioner on 6.07.2007 and his subsequently two written reminders to the Deputy Commissioner in three years also speaks of casual approach of the staff of Sub Divisional Magistrate -cum- Land Acquisition Collector, Roopnagar and the officials who were the dealing Senior Assistants are the following:- (1) Sh. Nirmal Kumar (2) Sh. Satnam Singh CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 9210 OF 2010(O&M) -7- (iv) Sh. Avtar Singh DRA of the office of Deputy Commissioner Roopnagar is also responsible for adopting casual approach in dealing with the case as detailed in Para-2 of this report. (v) The Sub Divisional Magistrates- cum- Land Acquisition Collectors working during this period despite multifarious duties, should have been little more serious about getting the award approved as it was their primary duty to see that the Draft Award is approved in a time bound manner and compensation disbursed to the concerned land owners. The Sub Divisional Magistrate -cum- Land Acquisition Collector, Roopnagar Sh. Karanveer Singh Mann remained posted only for nine days & thus was not supposed to know of this case during this brief period. 11.Thus, I feel that officials/ officers mentioned in sub paras (i) to (v) of Para 10 above are collectively responsible for the delay in the finalisation of draft award by the competent authority. But the official finding mention in sub para (i) is primarily responsible for the lapse.” Suspecting that there may not be an attempt to save some senior officer, vide order dated August 30, 2010, Chief Secretary of the State of Punjab was directed to file an affidavit stating as to whether at any time during this period of about three years, original letter/ reminders sent by the Deputy Commissioner, Roop Nagar, were ever put up before the Secretary CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 9210 OF 2010(O&M) -8- or not. In response thereto, an affidavit has been filed, wherein it has been said that at no point of time those letters were put up before the competent authority. In view of facts and circumstances, stated above, we direct that the penal action be taken against officers, who were found guilty vide the enquiry report dated August 12, 2010, and copy of the order passed be dispatched to the Court for information. So far as prayer of the petitioners to quash the impugned notifications is concerned, that cannot be entertained at this stage because after acquisition of the land, Railway lines stand laid thereon and compensation amount paid to the petitioners. However, taking note of facts and circumstances of the case, for causing the delay in making payment of compensation to the petitioners, we impose costs of ` 5,000/- to be paid to each of the petitioners (37 in number) by respondent No. 2 through the Land Acquisition Collector. The needful be done within a period of three weeks from today. After making payment of the amount, the same be recovered from the officers, who were found guilty in causing the delay. Writ petition stands disposed of accordingly. Copy of this order be given Dasti. ( JASBIR SINGH ) JUDGE (AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH) JUDGE September 22, 2010. DKC