Punjab-Haryana High Court
State Of Haryana & Ors vs Rajesh & Ors on 28 August, 2014
Author: Rajesh Bindal
Bench: Rajesh Bindal
RFA No. 6309 of 2013 [1]
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
RFA No. 6309 of 2013 (O&M)
Date of decision: 28.8.2014
State of Haryana and another
.. Appellants
v.
Rajesh and others
.. Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL
Present: Mr. Roopak Bansal, Addl. Advocate General, Haryana.
...
Rajesh Bindal J.
This order will dispose of RFA Nos. 6309 and 6310 of 2013. The same have been filed impugning the common award of the learned court below dated 9.5.2013, vide which compensation for the acquired land was determined.
Briefly, the facts of the case are that State of Haryana vide notification dated 26.3.2008, issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, 'the Act') sought to acquire land measuring 1 kanal and 18 marlas, situated within the municipal limits of Charkhi Dadri, District Bhiwani for the purpose of Dadri disposal and addition of sewer scheme. The same was followed by notification dated 17.10.2008, issued under Section 6 of the Act. The Land Acquisition Collector (for short, 'the Collector'), vide award dated 11.1.2010, assessed the market value of the land @ ` 26,84,800/- per acre. Aggrieved against the award of the Collector, the land owners filed objections which were referred to the learned court below, who keeping in view the material placed on record by the parties, assessed the market value of the acquired land @ ` 28,00,000/- per acre. It is this award which has been impugned in the present appeals by MANOJ KUMAR 2014.09.17 16:35 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RFA No. 6309 of 2013 [2] the State.
The acquired land was merely 1 kanal and 18 marlas and the owners thereof in both the appeals were 15 in number. The increase made by the learned Reference Court was from ` 26,84,800/- to ` 28,00,000/- per acre. Resultantly, the amount involved was ` 27,360/-. When the cases were listed for hearing on 24.9.2013, the same were adjourned on request of counsel for the State to get the file where opinion was expressed by different authorities finding the cases to be fit for filing appeals. Thereafter, the cases were adjourned number of times.
Today, file from the office of Legal Remembrancer has been produced in court. From a perusal of the aforesaid file, it is evident that the District Attorney, while sending copy of the judgment to the Legal Remembrancer, had opined that the cases are not fit for filing appeals, still the office of Legal Remembrancer opined that the cases were fit for filing appeals, hence, the appeals were filed.
As has already been noticed above, on 24.9.2013, the cases were adjourned on request of learned counsel for the State to enable him to produce the file from the office of Legal Remembrancer, still in the file a noting has been put on 3.1.2014 requiring to ask Advocate General to intimate whether there is any court order to produce the file of the office, otherwise necessary instructions have already been issued to the Advocate General for filing appeals. Thereafter, it has been noticed that this court had verbally ordered to produce the file of the office of Legal Remembrancer. The aforesaid noting establishes that wrong facts have been noted in the file, whereas the order passed on 24.9.2013, which is extracted below, clearly shows that learned counsel for the State had sought time to produce the file:
"Learned counsel for the State seeks time to get the file where opinion was expressed by different authorities finding the case to be fit for filing appeal.
Adjourned to 30.10.2013.
A photo copy of the order be placed on the file of connected case."MANOJ KUMAR 2014.09.17 16:35 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RFA No. 6309 of 2013 [3]
No where in the opinion of the District Attorney or the noting in the office of Legal Remembrancer, it has been mentioned that how much would be the amount involved in two appeals, where the landowners were 15 in number whose 1 kanal and 18 marlas of land was acquired.
No doubt, the State had come with Haryana State Litigation Policy, 2010, but that seems to be on papers only for making tall claims before the courts and other authorities that the Government is making all out efforts for reducing the litigation. However, the guidelines contained in the aforesaid policy have apparently been violated more than followed in the case in hand. Paragraph 5.7 of the policy provides that "no appeal at any level is to be filed without full application of mind to the order/judgment at hand". Para 5.7.1 thereof provides that "appeals will not be filed in cases where insignificant amounts are involved and when no question of law is involved." Clause (a) of para 5.7.2 (G) of the policy provides that " appeals in revenue matters will not be filed, if the stakes are not high and are less than that amount to be fixed by the Revenue Authorities". Para 6.2 also provides that if the amount is not of substance, the appeal may not be filed unless there is substantial question of law involved.
Despite aforesaid provisions being there in the litigation policy, at any stage in the case in hand, no one examined the fact as to how much was the amount involved in the case, which has resulted in filing of two appeals. As against the aforesaid action of the State in filing appeals, where the amount involved was quite meagre, there are numerous instances where despite the amount involved being in crores/lacs of rupees, either no appeals had been filed or the same were filed belatedly for the reasons best known to the authorities. The appeals filed by the State on account of delay were even dismissed by this court. For the purpose, reference can be made to the following cases:
(1) RFA No. 6212 of 2013 -State of Haryana and another v. Jasmer Singh and another, decided on 25.9.2013, where bunch of 55 appeals were dismissed as there was delay of 616 days in filing the appeals without any justification. The compensation determined by the Collector @ ` 12,00,000/- per acre for the land situated on MANOJ KUMAR 2014.09.17 16:35 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RFA No. 6309 of 2013 [4] G.T. Road and ` 8,00,000/- per acre for the land beyond that had been enhanced by the Reference Court to ` 19,20,000/- per acre and ` 16,00,000/- per acre respectively.
(2) In RFA No. 6684 of 2012 -State of Haryana v. Malkit Singh and others, the delay was of 707 days in filing the appeals. The compensation, as assessed by the Collector at two different rates, namely, ` 2,40,000/- per acre for chahi and ` 1,80,000/- per acre for other kinds of land was enhanced to ` 198/- per square yard, i.e., ` 9,58,320/- per acre, but still no efforts were made by the State to file appeals within time.
(3) RFA No.1316 of 2009--State of Haryana and another v. Ram Kishan and others and other appeals were dismissed on 7.9.2010 on account of delay of 8 years and 251 days in re-filing the appeals. These were the cases where in a bunch of other appeals filed by the State, the compensation had been reduced by this court from ` 281.76 per square to ` 250/- per square yard. (4) In RFA No. 2325 of 2012--State of Haryana v. Harish, where the compensation from ` 50,000/- per acre to ` 1,10,000/- per acre for different kinds of land was enhanced to ` 250/- per square yard, i.e., ` 12,10,000/- per acre by the learned Reference Court, the appeals were filed after a delay of 184 days in filing and 653 days in re-filing thereof. The same were dismissed on 7.11.2013.
Regarding the same acquisition, the appeals were dismissed on account of delay of 761 days in filing thereof in RFA No. 6878 of 2012--State of Haryana v. Smt. Kreshni and others, decided on 26.8.2013 and delay of 622 and 636 days in RFA No. 6587 of 2012-- State of Haryana v. Smt. Ganeshi and others, decided on 4.9.2013.
From R.F.A. No. 459 of 2008--Luxmi Narayan v. State of Haryana and others, decided on 1.9.2010, it is evident that pertaining to acquisition of land of different villages acquired for construction of Pataudi Distributory, as against the award of the Collector assessing the value of the acquired land @ ` 2,70,000/- to ` 3,20,000/- per acre, the compensation MANOJ KUMAR 2014.09.17 16:35 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RFA No. 6309 of 2013 [5] assessed by the learned Reference Court on the basis of evidence led was from 9,00,000/- to 11,00,000/- per acre, but still no appeal was filed by the State.
Civil Revision No. 7811 of 2009--State of Haryana and others v. Dewan Chand Kunger, filed by the State in a case involving ` 17,878/- was dismissed on account of meagreness of the amount involved as the State approached this court after failing in both the courts below. In an enquiry got conducted, while making conservative estimates, the State admitted that the amount spent in terms of money and time for prosecuting the aforesaid litigation was ` 31,970/-.
In a bunch of appeals pertaining to acquisition of land at Gurgaon, where notification under Section 4 of the Act was issued on 17.4.1989, this court had reduced the compensation. The State filed appeals before Hon'ble the Supreme Court, however, the matters there were conceded and settled stating that the State will comply with the award of the Reference Court ignoring that of the judgment of this court, where the compensation was reduced. The amount as such involved therein was about ` 135 crores.
Another startling fact, which had come before this court, was that whenever bunch of references are decided by the Reference Court, the appeals are not filed in all the cases. When the issue was got examined with data in cases pertaining to acquisition at Kaithal, it was clearly established in that case. Reference can be made to the judgment of this court in RFA No. 2218 of 2007--Smt. Maya and others v. State of Haryana and others, decided on 23.1.2012.
Not only this, the matters came before this court where FDRs worth crores of rupees were lying in this court. The amount was deposited with the Registry of this court in terms of the interim orders passed in different appeals. Though the appeals were decided long back, but no efforts were made by the State to get the amount back. In many of those cases, in executions filed by the landowners, the amounts were paid. Meaning thereby there was no account of the amounts deposited with this court. Similar was the position with regard to different amounts deposited in FDRs MANOJ KUMAR 2014.09.17 16:35 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RFA No. 6309 of 2013 [6] by HSIIDC.
The matter does not end here. Many cases have come up before this court, where administrative departments had been over-ruling the opinion expressed by the office of Legal Remembrancer in filing appeals/petitions before this court, even where the Legal Remembrancer opined those to be not fit for filing appeals/petitions. Meaning thereby, there is no uniform system being followed as to whether it is Legal Remembrancer, whose opinion is final or the administrative department and under what circumstances the file goes to the administrative department after the opinion by the Legal Remembrancer. In the present case, the District Attorney had sent his opinion to the Legal Remembrancer who, in turn, opined the cases to be fit for filing appeals. Not only this, even after the opinion is given the Legal Remembrancer's office, when the appeal is to be filed by the office of Advocate General, even at that stage, the issue can be seen as to whether it is worth filing appeal considering the amount or the legal issue involved. As the officers in the office of Advocate General are supposed to be well-versed in latest law, they are not supposed to do mechanical exercise by filing appeal in each case where the file is sent to them.
It is expected that the State will take some corrective measures to avoid such a situation in future and avoid unnecessary litigation.
For the reasons mentioned above, the present appeals are dismissed subject to payment of ` 25,000/- as cost to be deposited with the Registry of this Court within one month of receipt of copy of order. Consequently, the accompanying applications are also dismissed.
(Rajesh Bindal) Judge 28.8.2014 mk (Refer to Reporter) MANOJ KUMAR 2014.09.17 16:35 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document