Supreme Court - Daily Orders
State Of Himachal Pradesh vs Prempal Singh . on 14 October, 2015
Bench: T.S. Thakur, Kurian Joseph
1
ITEM NO.19 COURT NO.2 SECTION XIV
S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s). 19409/2015
(Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 20/11/2014
in CWP No. 4739/2014 passed by the High Court Of Himachal Pradesh
At Shimla)
STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AND ORS. Petitioner(s)
VERSUS
PREMPAL SINGH AND ORS. Respondent(s)
(with appln. For c/delay in filing SLP and interim stay and office
report)
Date : 14/10/2015 This petition was called on for hearing today.
CORAM :
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.S. THAKUR
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KURIAN JOSEPH
For Petitioner(s) Mr. J.S.Attri, Sr. Adv.
Mr. Suryanarayna Singh, AAG,
Ms. Pragati Neekhra,Adv.
For Respondent(s) Mr. Ranjit Kumar, SG
Mr. Ajay Sharma, Adv.
MS. Rekha Pandey, Adv.
MS. Binu Tamta, Adv.
Mr. R.S.Nagar, Adv.
Mr. D. S. Mahra,Adv.
UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following
O R D E R
Signature Not Verified The facts of this case bring to the fore have a sad state of Digitally signed by Shashi Sareen Date: 2015.10.17 affairs. The controversy here relates to the acquisition of land 06:27:20 IST Reason:
for the construction of a project which was essentially meant for 2 supply of water to NCT of Delhi and its neighbouring areas in the States of Haryana and U.P. An incidental benefit in the form of electricity generated out of the project was supposed to go to the State of Himachal Pradesh. The project was at a later stage declared to be a project of national importance in which the beneficiary States were to contribute to the extent of 10% of the total project cost. While the remaining 90% was to be borne by the Government of India. Before us also it is not in dispute that the ratio of 10:19 between the beneficiary States and the Union of India was the ratio in which the liability arising out of cost of construction of the was project to be shared.
Acquisition proceedings in relation to the land needed for the project appear to have been started some time in the year 2008 and a large extent of land measuring 2093 hectares out of which 925 hectares was private land for permanent use, 244 hectares comprised private land for temporary use and 909 hectares of forest land out of which 695 hectares was forest land while remaining 134 hectares was private forest land and 80 hectares deemed forest land was brought under acquisition. Compensation for the land acquired from private owners was determined by the Collectors concerned in terms of a series of awards made from time to time. It is not in dispute that as many as 40 awards have been made by the Collectors concerned determining a total of Rs.146.48 crores towards compensation. Interest payable on the said amount up to 31.12.2014 @ 9% p.a. for the first year and 15% p.a. for the subsequent period has been worked out at Rs.40.83 crores making a total of Rs. 1,87,31,24,162/- payable towards compensation as on 31.12.2014. 3
The case of the petitioner-State in the present special leave petition is that the amount payable to the land owners has not been paid in several cases primarily because of the failure of the Government of India to release the funds for such distributions. The result is that the land-owners who have lost their lands in connection with the acquisition proceedings have approached the High Court of Himachal Pradesh at Shimla in several writ petitions filed for directions for payment of the amounts due to them under the awards. The High Court has in those petitions passed orders directing the State Government to pay the amount of compensation held due and payable to the land owners. Writ Petition No. 5095 of 2014 filed by Roop Singh and Ors. decided on 05.08.2014 is one such case in which the High Court has directed the State to immediately release the amount of compensation in favour of the land owners. This is followed by another order dated 20.11.2014 passed by the High Court in CWP No. 4739 of 2014 filed by Prem Pal Singh and Ors.-respondents herein. The High Court has by the said order again issued a direction to the State Government to take a decision regarding payment of the amount of compensation having regard to the direction issued earlier in Roop Singh's case supra. The petitioner-State has assailed the said order before us in the present special leave petition.
When this petition initially came up before us on 09.07.2015, Mr. J.S.Attri, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner-State, pointed out that non-payment of compensation which is already determined in terms of the awards made by the collectors is primarily on account of failure of the Government of 4 India and the State of NCT of Delhi to provide the funds requisite for making such payments and for the future progress of the project in question. He made an oral prayer for addition of Secretary, Ministry of Water resources River Development and Ganga Rejuvenation, Government of India as a party respondent to the present special leave petition for a final and effective adjudication of the issue whether the Government of India can and ought to make the requisite funds available for payment to the land owners. A similar prayer was also made for addition of Government of NCT as a party respondent. Allowing the said prayers, we had added Secretary, Ministry of Water Resources, River Development and Ganga Rejuvenation, Government of India as party respondent No. 15. We had also added Government of NCT of Delhi as party respondent No. 16 to these proceedings and requested Mr. Ranjit Kumar, learned Solicitor General to take instructions in the matter and assist us. Mr. Kumar has accordingly taken instructions and filed an affidavit on behalf of both the newly added respondents.
We have today heard Mr. J.S.Attri, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner-State and Mr. Ranjit Kumar, learned Solicitor General, who appears for Government of India as also NCT of Delhi. Mr. Kumar points out that according to his instructions the Government of NCT of Delhi has released funds to the tune of Rs.239.84 crores in connection with the project afore-mentioned, but the Government of H.P. has either misdirected the said funds or provided no satisfactory account for the same. He submits that Government of H.P. is duty-bound to account for the money received by it and any further release would depend upon a proper 5 appropriation of the amount already released.
Insofar as the liability of the Government of India for providing funds to the tune of 90% of the project cost is concerned, Mr. Kumar submits that the release of the said amount is dependent upon clearances required for the project. He submits that while some clearances have been obtained by the Government of H.P., the remaining clearances are still awaited. He submits that unless those clearances are also obtained, the Central Government is not inclined to release the said funds. He has in particular drawn our attention to paras 6 and 7 of the affidavit filed which are to the following effect:
“6. That the Planning Commission being converted into NITI Aayog, the investment clearance will not be issued by Ministry of Water Resources and process accepted by PMO has been forwarded to Cabinet Secretariat to formalise it and is under approval of the competent authority.
7. That once all the issues pending towards statutory clearances and MOU between all party States are resolved, Ministry may take a further view regarding funding of the project after necessary Cabinet approval.” On behalf of the State of H.P., it is submitted by Mr. Attri that as against Rs.239.84 crores released by the Government of NCT of Delhi and Haryana, the Government of H.P. has already spent Rs. 269.0719 crores on the project up to 30.09.2015. He has in that regard placed on record a communication addressed by the General Manager, Renukaji Dam Project, HPPCL, Dadahu on record. From a 6 reading of the said letter and the details of expenditure enclosed therewith in terms of Annexures 1 and 2 to the same, it does appear that the Government of H.P. has spent a sum of Rs.269.0719 crores out of which the Government has spent a sum of Rs 165.9098 crores towards land acquisition, while the rest of the expenditure had been incurred on R & R, Environment, survey investigation and infrastructure and other expenses. We have no reason to disbelieve the version of the State of H.P. that the expenditure indicated in the Annexures has indeed been incurred by them out of the amount transferred to it by the State of Delhi and Haryana. If that be so, as it appears to us to be the position, the balance amount payable towards the cost of acquisition of lands acquired from private owners must be borne by the Government of India especially when the project has been declared to be a project of national importance and in terms of the Memo of Understanding executed between the participating States, the liability towards construction cost which includes acquisition of land also must fall upon the Government of India to the extent of 90%. It is also not in dispute that the Government of India has not released a penny towards its 90% liability under the Memo of Understanding and arrangement between the parties. The only explanation offered for this omission is that the matter is still being processed at various levels. What is significant is that the affidavit was filed by the Government of India as late as on 20 th July, 2015. As to what steps have been taken by the Government ever since the affidavit was filed is not very clear nor was Mr. Kumar in a position to state as to how much time would the Government of India take to 7 process the file and ensure release of an amount that is sufficient to bear the cost of acquisition. It is true that some statutory clearances may be required to be obtained by the Government of H.P. but even those clearances have to be issued by the authorities under the control of Government of India. The question is whether the land owners whose lands have been acquired can be made to suffer on account of indifference, apathy or negligence on the part of Government or on account of any lack of co-ordination or consensus between the two governments. The project, as noticed above, is a project of national importance meant to provide drinking water to the NCT of Delhi. Even surrounding areas like Noida, Faridabad, U.P. and Haryana may benefit from the successful and early completion of the project. We would, therefore, have appreciated if all concerned were to focus their attention and work towards completion of the project instead of taking an obstructionist stance in the matter. We only hope and trust that the delay is not deliberate or that it does not arise out of any consideration other than the government's anxiety for adherence to the statutory provisions. All that we need say is that the project cannot be allowed to be killed by any kind of apathy or indifference nor can land owners be made to suffer for no fault of theirs. We also need mention that according to the Government of H.P., the total project cost was initially estimated at Rs. 3498.86 crores as in March, 2009 and with every day's delay in the execution of the project the same is likely to go beyond Rs. 5,000 crores.8
In the totality of the above circumstances, therefore, we deem it just and proper to direct that while the Government of India may expedite the clearances required for release of the funds and expedite such release, the process of taking over possession from the land owners who have not been paid the amount of compensation will remain stayed. This may mean higher financial implications for the States and the Union of India on account of several factors but we cannot help issuing such a direction in the interest of poor farmers who are deprived of their lands without being paid the compensation due to them. We grant to the Government of India four weeks' time to take a final decision in the matter and to report further developments to this Court. We also expect the Government of H.P. to pursue the matter with concerned authority for clearances that remain to be obtained and file a status report about what is deficient in obtaining such clearances. Till the next date of hearing, the contempt proceedings initiated by the land owners before the High Court shall remain stayed.
(Shashi Sareen) (Veena Khera) AR-cum-PS Court Master