State of Haryana vs Malkit Singh and Others

Rajesh Bindal, J.—This order will dispose of RFA Nos. 6684 to 6712 of 2012, as the same arise out of common acquisition. However, the facts have been extracted from RFA No. 6684 of 20,12.

The State is in appeal impugning the award of the learned Reference Court dated, 30.9.2010, whereby the compensation payable to the landowners for the acquired land was enhanced. Along with the appeal, an application seeking condonation of 707 days in filing thereof has also been filed.

Briefly the facts are that vide notification dated 3.2.2000, published on 15.2.2000, issued u/s 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, "the Act"), the State of Haryana sought to acquire land situated within the revenue estate of Janetpur, Hadbast No. 45, Tehsil and District Ambala, for provisions of alternative land to defence authority in lieu of company ground at Panipat. The same was followed by notification issued u/s 6 of the Act on 17.8.2000 and published in Haryana Government Gazette on 12.9.2000. The Land Acquisition Collector (for short, ''the Collector�), vide his award dated 10.9.2001, assessed the market value of the acquired land @ Rs. 2,40,000/- per acre for chahi and Rs. 1,80,000/- per acre for other kinds of land. Dissatisfied with the award of the Collector, the landowners filed objections. On reference u/s 18 of the Act, the learned court below vide award dated 30.9.2010, determined the market value of the acquired; land @ Rs. 198/- per square yard.

Learned counsel for the State submitted that delay in filing of the appeal occurred on account of lapse on the part of the officer concerned. However, on that count the State should not be made to suffer. The District Revenue Officer and the Staff posted in the District Revenue Officer, Ambala, at the relevant time did not take any step for filing the appeal, however, when the notice was received in the execution petition on 31.10.2012, the necessary action was taken to file the appeal. He further submitted that in case the delay is not condoned, the State will surfer huge loss as the amount of compensation will be paid to the landowners which they do not deserve. He further submitted that on account of lapse, initially notices were issued to kanoongo and patwari, however, after the order was passed by this court on 2.7.2013, now the notices have been issued to Gurdial Singh, retired District Revenue Officer-cum-Land Acquisition Collector, Ambala and Satish Bhardwaj, the present District Revenue Officer.

Learned counsel for the landowners submitted that the reasons given in the application seeking condonation of 707 days delay is not justifiable. The award of the learned court below which is impugned in the present appeal is dated 30.9.2010. As stated in the application, the District Attorney opined the case to be fit case for filing the appeal on 2.11.2010. Thereafter, the Legal Remembrancer issued instructions to the office of Advocate General, Haryana, for filing appeals on 22.11.2010. But no action was taken by the department concerned. The office of the Advocate General, Haryana, issued nine reminders to the District Revenue Officer-cum-Land Acquisition Collector for sending the documents for filing appeals but still no action was taken. Merely because now the notices have been issued to the officers and officials for their alleged lapse, it cannot be claimed that delay of 707 days can be condoned.

It was further submitted by learned counsel for the landowners that even on merits there is nothing in the present appeals. The learned court below has placed reliance upon its earlier award pertaining to land of village Tundla and Tundli for which notification u/s 4 of the Act was issued on 27.8.1997 which is adjoining to the land acquired for the same purpose. For the aforesaid acquisition, the learned Reference Court has awarded compensation @ Rs. 198/- per square yard. In the present case, the acquisition was made on 3.2.2000 but still for the time gap between two notifications, the increase was not granted.

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the paper book.

In the application seeking condonation of delay of 707 days in filing the appeal ground raised by the applicant-appellant is that officers posted in the District Revenue Office-cum-Land Acquisition Collector, Ambala''s office were responsible for not filing the appeal in time. The award of the learned Court below in the present case was passed on 30.9.2010. The matter was referred by the District Attorney with remarks that it is a fit case for filing appeal on 2.11.2010. Thereafter, the Legal Remembrancer issued instructions to the office of the Advocate General, Haryana, for filing appeal on 22.11.2010. The office of the Advocate General, Haryana, requested the District Revenue Officer-cum-Land Acquisition Collector many times for sending the documents for filing appeal, however, no care was taken by anyone in the office of the District Revenue Officer, Ambala. It is claimed that the matter was taken up only after the summons were received in the execution of the award.

Thereafter, the appeals were filed in this court on 5.12.2012 after a delay of 707 days. It is further submitted in the application seeking condonation of delay that finding the lapse on the part of the officers notices have been issued to the concerned Kanoongo and Patwari on 21.11.2012 for not filing the appeals within time. On 2.7.2013, after hearing the contention raised by learned counsel for the parties, this Court passed the following order:--

In the aforesaid bunch of appeals, applications seeking condonation of delay in filing the appeals have been filed. It is stated therein that against the award dated 30.9.2010, the Legal Remembrancer-cum-Law Secretary, issued instructions on 22.11.2010 for filing appeals.

Thereafter, despite number of reminders sent by the Advocate General, Haryana to the District Revenue Officer-cum- Land Acquisition Collector, Ambala, the appeals were not filed. The same were filed only after receipt of notice in the execution application filed by the landowners.

In para 7 of the application, it is mentioned that notices have been issued to the Kanoongo and Patwari for not filing the appeal in this court.

From the aforesaid averments it is apparent that only the Kanoongo and Patwaris are responsible for filing appeals whereas the instructions were issued by the Legal Remembrancer-cum-Law Secretary and reminders were addressed by the Advocate General, Haryana to the District Revenue Officer-cum- Land Acquisition Collector. The reasons as to why he had not taken care for more than two years for filing the appeals, is required to be explained.

Learned counsel for the State seeks time to file affidavit of Principal Secretary of the Department concerned explaining as to whether the District Revenue Officer-cum-Land Acquisition Collector is not responsible for any lapse in his office and only the Patwari and Kanoongos are responsible. Adjourned to 29.7.2013.

Today, affidavit of Krishna Mohan, Additional Chief Secretary & Financial Commissioner, Department of Revenue and Disaster Management, Haryana, dated 6.8.2013, has been filed in court, which is taken on record. It is stated therein that during the period from 6.10.2010 to 31.3.2012, Gurdial Singh was posted as District Revenue Officer-cum-Land Acquisition Collector, Ambala. He retired from service on 31.3.2012 on superannuation. The competent authority has decided to initiate disciplinary proceedings against him under Rule 2.2(b) of the Punjab Civil Services Rules Volume-II, Part-1. Since 9.4.2012 Satish Bhardwaj has been working as District Revenue Officer-cum- Land Acquisition Collector and for negligence on his part also, the competent authority has decided to initiate disciplinary proceedings against him under Rule-7 of the Haryana Civil Services (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1987. Notices to the aforesaid officers have been issued on 5.8.2013 i.e. yesterday, as on the last date of hearing, the State counsel sought time to file affidavit of the Principal Secretary of the Department concerned explaining as to whether the District Revenue Officer-cum- Land Acquisition Collector is not responsible for any lapse in his office and only the Patwari and Kanoongos are responsible.

It is not a case in isolation where there has been lapse on the part of the officers/officials of State in not pursuing the cases properly and filing the appeals belatedly. Most of the times action is not taken against the guilty officers/officials. Even where proceedings are initiated against the officer concerned, but ultimately no punishment is inflicted on the officers and only the small time employees are punished. The officers are left with simple warning as if officers in the department are not responsible. Even in the cases where there was more than 8 years delay in refiling, no serious action was taken against any officer. Reference can be made to RFA No. 1316 of 2009 - State of Haryana and another v. Ram Kishan and others decided on 7.9.2010.

In the present case as well the action has been taken only when on the last date of hearing the learned counsel for the State was not able to justify as to why the Land Acquisition Collector, who was the head of the office in the District was not responsible for the lapse committed in his office. Considering the aforesaid facts, in my opinion, there is no justification for condoning 707 days delay in filing the appeal. Accordingly, the applications for condonation of delay are dismissed. Consequently, the appeals are also dismissed.