RAJESH GUPTA vs THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE DEHRADUN AND OTHERS

Sudhanshu Dhulia, J

The petitioner claims that his land was acquired by the State Government without following the due process of law. Although the case of the State

was that it was done by consent of the petitioner and the amount has already been paid to the petitioner. Subsequently, the petitioner filed a writ

petition before this Court being WPMS No.228 of 2013, which was disposed of by this Court vide order dated

17.09.2014 by passing the following order:-

“Undisputedly, petitioner was Bhumidhar in possession of land bearing Khasra no. 1071, 1072(kha), 1074, 1075, 1076 (kha) and 1089(kha), total

measuring 0.6640 hectares situated at Village Jantanwala Dhaulas, Tehsil Vikas Nagar, Dehradun; as revealed from the letter dated 04.08.2009

(Annexure No. CA 1 to the counter affidavit of Jeet Singh Rawat, Assistant Engineer, PWD, Provincial Division Dehradun), petitioner was informed

that his land could be purchased through sale deed on the rate mutually settled between the parties, otherwise proposal would be sent to the Collector

for acquisition of the land; letter dated 11.07.2012 (Annexure no. CA 2 to the counter affidavit filed by Sri Jeet Singh Rawat, Assistant Engineer,

PWD) reveals that proposal was contemplated under Section 17 (1) of the Land Acquisition Act for acquisition of land, in question.Â

Mr. R.C. Arya, learned Standing Counsel while referring to annexure no. CA 2 dated 11.07.2012, submits that road was constructed over the property

of the petitioner by his consent, as mentioned in Annexure no. CA 2.Â

On the other hand, Mr. Ramji Srivastava, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that as per contents of the letter dated 04.08.2009 (Annexure

no. CA 1) written by Assistant Engineer, PWD, land of the petitioner was proposed to be purchased on the rates mutually agreed between the parties

through sale deed, failing which PWD was contemplating to write to the Collector to initiate acquisition proceedings.Â

He further contends that even letter dated 11.07.2012 (Annexure No. CA 2) would demonstrate that department was contemplating to initiate

proceedings under Section 17 (1) of the Land Acquisition Act, therefore, there is no question of giving any consent.Â

Be that as it may, the fact remains that the land of the petitioner was taken by respondents and road was constructed thereon without acquiring the

same, as per law.Â

In my considered opinion, in view of Article 300 A of the Constitution of India, none can be deprived of his property save by authority of law.

Therefore, respondents have illegally deprived the petitioner from his land by not adopting procedure prescribed under the law. Petitioner is entitled for

compensation for his acquired land.Â

Mr. R.C. Arya, learned counsel for the respondents submits that since road was constructed over the land of the petitioner in the year 2009, therefore,

cost of the land shall be determined, as per prevailing circle rate, after issuing notice to the petitioner and after giving opportunity of being heard to him

by the Collector within 90 days from today. Petitioner shall also be paid statutory interest as well as solatium, as per provision of Land Acquisition Act,

within next 60 days.Â

Present petition, thus, stands disposed of with direction to the respondent no. 1 to calculate the compensation within 90 days from today, after issuing

the notice to the petitioner and after giving opportunity of being heard to the petitioner and amount of compensation along with solatium and statutory

interest shall be paid to the petitioner within next 60 days, if compensation along with solatium and statutory interest is not paid within next 60 days,

then petitioner shall also be paid penal interest at the rate of 12% per annum from today till the actual payment is made to the petitioner.â€​Â

This Court has been informed that this order was not challenged by the State in the special appeal. Subsequently, the petitioner filed a contempt

petition before this Court and during the pendency of the contempt petition, compliance affidavits were filed by respondent nos. 2 and 3 stating that a

cheque of Rs.6,68,926/- (Rupees Six Lakh Sixty Eight Thousand Nine Hundred Twenty Six Only) in the name of the petitioner has already been sent.

Consequently, the contempt petition was disposed of by this Court vide order dated 28.12.2016. The relevant paragraph of the aforesaid order reads

as under:-

“3. In view of this Court, the petitioner may still have a cause of action to challenge the said amount of compensation by way of filing a writ

petition but as far as contempt is concerned, no contempt is made out.â€​Â

Now the petitioner has filed the present writ petition before this Court praying that the compensation should have been given to the petitioner under

the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013. This was never the pleading of the

petitioner and there has been no adjudication on this aspect and therefore, this cannot even be looked into. It is an admitted fact that the petitioner has

received the compensation earlier.Â

In view of the above, the writ petition stands dismissed.Â