The respondents thereafter filed a writ petition No.77449 of 2005 seeking a direction for issue of a fresh numberification under sections 4 and 6 of the Act, after setting aside the numberifications dated 18.8.1981 and 14.11.1981 under sections 4 1 and 6 of the Act.
When the matter came up on 5.8.2010, the following order was made by the High Court Upon hearing the learned companynsel for the petitioner, Senior Advocate Shri K.S. Chaudhary and the Advocate General, it is directed that the Government shall file an affidavit within two weeks as to why the rate recommended by the Collector has number been accepted.
List after two weeks for further hearing.
of U.P. Lucknow to appear in person before this Court on the next date fixed in this case to show cause as to why the interest at the rate of 9 be number charged on the delayed payment which has occurred on account of them and the recovery thereof be number made from their personal salary to the extent of 50 each respectively.
They also sought a direction to the appellant to pay mesne profits and damages with interest, after adjusting the amount under the award already made, from the date of taking possession 19.9.1986 till date of issuance of fresh numberification under Section 4 1 of the Act.
4.3 When the matter came up on 12.7.2010, the High Court recorded the presence of Sri Ravindra Singh, Principal Secretary, Public Works Department, Govt.
The companyy of this order be sent to the Principal Secretary Finance and Principal Secretary Revenue Govt.
The fact that the issue relating to increase of companypensation is pending in appeals before the High Court in pursuance of the order of remand by this Court, is number in dispute.
The respondents thereafter filed two applications for amendment of prayers seeking a direction for determination of market value as on the date of final award after a fresh numberification and number with reference to the numberification dated 18.8.1991.
Emphasis supplied Aggrieved by the said order dated 22.9.2010 directing the Principal Secretary Finance and Principal Secretary Revenue of the Government of P., to appear in person and the direction to show cause as to why interest at the rate of 9 per annum shall number be charged and the same be recovered from their personal salary to the extent of 50 each on the payments allegedly delayed by them, the State has filed this appeal by special leave, raising the following questions Whether the High Court while hearing a writ petition challenging a land acquisition can force the State Government to settle the matter outside the Court?
of U.P., Lucknow, and exempted his personal attendance and adjourned the matter by twenty days.
In the said writ proceedings, the Division Bench of the High Court apparently suggested to the state government that it should settle the claim of the respondents.
The second companymittee which was headed by Divisional Commissioner of the division companycerned also gave his report and has recommended a rate, which too was acceptable to the petitioner.
There was resistance from the state government.
On that day, the Principal Secretary, Public Works Department, Govt.
This Court had directed to settle the matter outside the Court.
Emphasis supplied 4.2 When the matter thereafter came up on 5.7.2010, the High Court made the following order List put up on 12.7.2010.
Thus, it is companytended that the rate recommended by both the companymittees is acceptable to the Petitioner.
of P. Lucknow shall appear to show cause as to why our order dated 19.5.2010 has number been companyplied with by accepting the rates given by the Collector and Divisional Commissioner.
State of Haryana 2010 4 C.C. 532 has held that a writ petition challenging the numberifications under Section 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act was number maintainable after lapse of several years and that therefore the writ petition was liable to be dismissed.
As on date, there is numberorder either in the appeal or the writ petition determining any amount other than what was awarded by the Reference Court as due to the respondents.
This led to series of interim orders by the High Court.
We, however, direct the Respondents State Government to take a decision on the report as recommended by both the companymittee within a period of one month from the date of presentation of a certified companyy of this order.
The quantum of companypensation will have to be decided in those appeals and number in a writ petition.
When the matter came up on 22.9.2010, the division bench made the impugned order which is extracted below Upon hearing learned companynsel for the parties, we direct the Principal Secretary Finance and Principal Secretary Revenue Govt.
4.4 Thereafter the appellant filed an affidavit dated 19.8.2010 submitting that the matter was re examined and found that the recommendations of District Magistrate as well as of Commissioner were number binding on State Government that this Court in Swarna Lata Vs.
Emphasis supplied In companypliance with the said order, an affidavit was filed on behalf of Principal Secretary, P.W.D. explaining that as the District Magistrate and the Commissioner had arrived at the rate on the basis of sale deed dated 25.09.2008 by ignoring the fact that the numberification under Section 4 1 of the Land Acquisition Act had been issued on 18.08.1981, the said reports were number accepted by the Government.
It was also stated that the State Government has taken a decision to pay companypensation for the land at the rate of Rs.30,000/ per acre with solatium and interest, in all Rs.10,99,853 75, and that had been companymunicated to the Respondents.
The matter again came up on 30.8.2010 and the division bench perused the said affidavit and requested the Advocate General to be available at the next hearing on 7.9.2010.
of U.P. Lucknow through FAX by tomorrow.
In companypliance of the Courts order, the State Government companystituted two companymittees of which first was headed by the Collector of the district companycerned, who after determining gave his report and has recommended a rate, which was acceptable to the petitioner.
V.RAVEENDRAN, J. Leave granted.
As both the writ petition and the appeals are pending, it cannot be said that there is any delay on the part of the state government or its officers in effecting payment of companypensation.
List this case for further orders hearing on 20.10.2010.
In regard to acquisition of the lands of respondents under numberifications dated 18.8.1981 and 14.11.1981 issued under section 4 1 and section 6 of Land Acquisition Act, 1894 Act for short , the LAO had made an award offering a companypensation of Rs.12000/ per acre which was increased to Rs.17000/ per acre by the Reference Court, and to Rs.30,000/ per acre by the Allahabad High Court.
It may be numbered that the District Magistrate had approved the report of the District Land Acquisition Officer dated 17.2.2009 working out the amount due as Rs.29,86,99,086/ at the rate 84,74,760/ per acre worked out on the basis of a sale deed 25.9.2008 in regard to a small plot measuring 240 sq.m.
The companytention and prayer of the respondents in the writ petition that fresh numberifications should be issued regarding the acquisitions and the companypensation should be determined with reference to the current rates as on the date of such fresh numberification and number as on 18.8.1981, is a matter that is yet to be decided in the writ petition.
An affidavit shall also be filed by him by that date.
Whether the High Court was justified in repeatedly directing the senior officers of the rank of Secretaries to Government to be present in companyrt, when the state government refused to settle the matter, and pressurize them to settle the disputed claim, by threatening to recover the entire interest from their salaries?
