Sajjan Kumari vs Sri Desh Deepak Verma & Another

Devendra Pratap Singh, J.

The following order was passed on 2.12.2009:

"Heard learned counsel for the parties.

About 43.04 acres of land, including the plots of the applicant and six others were notified under Section 28 of the U.P.Avas Evam Parishad Adhiniyam followed by notification under Section 32 and possession thereof was also taken on 2nd July 1988. The award was rendered on 19th of September 1988 but compensation was not paid to the land owners forcing them to prefer Writ Petition No 22401 of 1989 and a Division Bench of this Court vide order dated 22.12.1992 directed the Collector, Bareilly to pay the compensation to the awardees within two months from the date of service of a certified copy of the order. The certified copy of the order was duly served on the Collector on 16.11.1992 but they were not paid the compensation forcing them to prefer the present contempt petition.

Upon exchange of affidavits, the Court passed the following order on 2.11.2000 :

"Rejoinder affidavit and two supplementary rejoinder affidavits have been filed today in the Court, copies of which has been served upon the learned Standing Counsel in the Court today. By means of these affidavits, the petitioner has filed certain documents on the basis of which the petitioner claims herself to be the owner of the land, which has been acquired. It has been alleged in the affidavit that the petitioner became owner of the land by virtue of registered sale deeds dated 8.9.1953 and 9.9.1953 executed by the then Municipal Board in favour of the petitioner. However, it has not been averred that these documents of title were submitted before the Collector Land Acquisition Officer for claiming payment of the compensation pursuant to the award and the order of this Court dated 22.10.1992.

It may be stated here that the relevant part of the order of this Court of which noncompliance is being complained as follows :

"Within two months from the date of the petitioner''s filing a certified copy of this order, the respondent no.2 will pay to the awardees the compensation which they are entitled to receive in terms of the award dated 19.9.1988"

The respondent No.2 referred to in the above order is the Collector, Bareilly.

The award dated 19.9.1988 states that Smt. Sajjan Kumari (the petitioner) has claimed compensation at a certain rate for certain land but has not given any evidence. Therefore, the award says that the determined compensation will be paid according to law on proof of title. The award further says that if there is a dispute the same will be referred to the competent court under Section 30/31.

Thus the petitioner was required to furnish proof of her title before the Collector or the Land Acquisition Officer for claiming compensation. General averment has also been made by the petitioner that she or her representative had been approaching the Collector Bareilly repeatedly but the Collector was not accepting any documents from her.

In absence of specific averments I am not inclined to proceed further with this quasi criminal proceedings by way of contempt at present.

However since the proof of title has already been furnished by way of averments and also Annexures in the supplementary rejoinder affidavit of Vibhuti Singh who is the son of the petitioner of which due notice has been given to the learned Standing counsel, therefore, the Collector Bareilly will examine these documents and will either make payment of the compensation within two months from today or within the same period he will pass an order stating detailed reasons why he is not placing reliance of these documents. Standing counsel will send copies of these affidavits filed today alongwith their Annexures stop the Collector for compliance. The Collector will not insist on filing of any original document but he may get the correctness or genuineness of any document verified. In case the Collector finds that there is a dispute by way of rival claim of title to this land by any party, he will examine whether the dispute is bonafide or not and whether rival claimant has produced equally authentic documents of title to this land and will pass reasoned order within the aforesaid period of two months. If he finds a case of bonafide dispute supported by cogent material, he may refer the matter under Section 30/31 of the Land Acquisition Act to the competent court within the same period of two months.

Learned Addl. Advocate General, Sri Vinod Swarup representing the State and Sri Pankaj Mittal representing the U.P. Avas Evam Vikas Parishad have urged that the possession of the acquired land had not been taken. They have relied upon certain documents and averments. Some of the averments are that the possession of the land has not been given by the Govt. to the Avas Vikas Parishad, which to my mind is irrelevant for the purposes of payment of compensation by the Collector to the land holder and what is relevant is the taking of possession from the land holders by the Collector. Tho0ugh it has been alleged that the possession was not taken by the Collector from the land holders but this also does not prima facie appear to be correct because of the facts and circumstances in which acquisition has taken place by applying urgency provision of Section 17 of the Land Acquisition Act, the award having been given the other documents showing that possession had been taken and also showing that the Awas Vikas Parishad had issued advertisement in news papers inviting tenders for construction work over the land.

In view of the above, the submission of Sri Pankaj Mittal that it is proposed to denotify this land also does not prima facie appear to be acceptable as after taking of possession, there is no question of denotification. Further for the purpose of this denotification, Avas Vikas has been obtaining adjournment earlier also with no result.

However, no final finding is being recorded on the question of possession and that question will be decided after recording of oral evidence, if the need arises.

List after two months.

Certified copies of this order may be issued to the parties on payment of requisite charges within three days."

Against the said order, Special Appeal No.22 of 2001 was preferred by the opposite parties but no stay order was granted. However, the aforesaid order was not complied and the matter remained pending. The said special appeal was dismissed on 18.12.2006 whereafter recall application was filed in April 2007, but that was also dismissed on 11.9.2009. However, till date neither the exercise as contemplated in the order dated 2.11.2000 has been completed nor the amounts have been paid till date.

Whoever is working as the Collector, Bareilly and the Housing Commissioner, U.P. Avas and Evam Vikas Parishad, 104, M.G.Marg, Lucknow shall appear on the next date to enable the Court to frame charges against them for wilful disobedience of the writ order.

Let a copy of this order be given to Sri K.R.Singh, learned Standing counsel within 48 hours and the Registrar General shall send a copy each to the aforesaid two officers.

List on 18th December 2009. "

In pursuance thereof, the Collector, Bareilly and the Housing Commissioner are present along with their respective affidavits. It is stated therein that the appeal filed by the Board was rejected in default as the counsel for the Board could not mark the case and consequently it was dismissed and therefore, they have moved an application for recall which is likely to be taken up on 8.1.2010.

List in the week commencing 8.2.2010 for further orders.

The personal presence of the officials is dispensed with till then.