http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 3  

CASE NO.: Appeal (civil)  1058 of 2000

PETITIONER: State of U.P. & Ors.

RESPONDENT: Manohar

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 15/12/2004

BENCH: Shivaraj V. Patil & B.N. Srikrishna

JUDGMENT: J U D G M E N T

B.N. Srikrishna, J.

       The respondent filed a writ petition  before the High Court of  judicature of Allahabad  seeking a writ of Mandamus to the appellant-  State of Uttar Pradesh and its officers to determine the compensation  in respect of his land  bearing plot no. 3 Ka (0.29 acres),  4 (0.37  acres) and 3 kha (1.01 acres) in village Chakiya Bhagwanpur, Tehsil  Lalganj, District Azamgarh, which, according to the respondent,  had  been taken away forcibly without following any process of law. It was  the specific case of the respondent that he had been dispossessed   from his land and the land had been taken by the appellants without  payment of any compensation and further that the appellants had put  up building and structures on the land sometime in 1955 and  that  despite repeated appeals made by him nobody was prepared to pay  compensation.  He enclosed along with the writ petition a letter no.  73/S.T.D.M-91 dated 9/10.4.91  written by the Collector, Azamgarh  to the Sepcial Land Acquisition Officer Azamgarh to the following  effect: "Please refer to the application of Shri Manohar s/o  Raghunath, Mauja Kharga Bhagwanpur, Block  Lalganj (enclosed).  He has stated that the  compensation for the land acquired for development  Block, Lalganj has not yet been paid even though  the  construction of the Development Block has  been done in the year 1955.

After looking into matter action be taken to make  payment of the compensation and I may be informed  about the position."

       This was replied to by the Special Land Acquisition Officer by  his letter dated 5.8.91 in which he says thus : "Please refer to this officer letter  no.1159/Aa.S.L.A.D.(J.V.) dated 23.3.1991;  and  letter no.28(2) eight S.L.A. O.(J.V.) dated 16.4.91  on the above subject under which Shri Manohar  Ram r/o Chakia Bhagwanpur Pargana Devgaon  Tehsil- Lalganj Special Power of Attorney Shrilal  s/o Bhoval made a complaint to the collection for  non-payment  of the compensation of the land  acquired for construction of Development Block,  Lalganj.  The B.D.O.  Lalganj has informed that the  Development Block, Lalganj was established on  16.1.1955 at 1.533 acres of land.

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 3  

Enclosing an attested copy of the Khatauni of 1377  F with his Application dated 20.6.91 Shri Manohar  has given an application that his land no. 3ka, 3kaa,  4ka has not been acquired but during consolidation  operation the Block Office being already in  existence there, his name was deleted by the  Department of consolidation. The copy of the  intkhab Khatauni was verified from the papers  preserved by the Record Room and the entries of the  Khatauni were found to be correct.  Even in the  office there is no reference of any proposal for land  acquisition.

Thus from the records and circumstantial evidence it  is evident that the land of Development Block,  Lalganj has not been acquired and on the basis of   the local position during consolidation operation the  Asstt. Consolidation Officer stated the name of the  office of Development Block in Records. Under  these circumstances, it is requested that the  compensation of the land of development block  office Lalganj may be paid by mutual settlement.

Under the above circumstances, this office has no  concern with this case."

       The grievance of the respondent before the High Court was that  his name was high-handedly deleted from the revenue record and the  revenue  record thereafter showed the name of the appellants. He was  dispossessed from the land and no compensation was paid, nor were  any steps taken in law for acquiring the land.  The respondent  demanded an amount of Rs.10 lakhs  as compensation with interest  from the date of dispossession.                  The appellants appeared through counsel before the High Court  and produced certain records.  In view of the correspondence, to  which we have referred, between the officers of the State, the High  Court came to the conclusion that the case made out by the respondent  was acceptable and that the State should be directed to take steps to  pay compensation to the petitioner within 3 months  with appropriate  interest in accordance with the law.  The High Court contemptuously  dismissed the arguments of the counsel for the appellant that the  petitioner had already been paid the compensation but that the records  evidencing such payment were not available as they had been ’weeded  out’ due to the delay on the part of the respondent in approaching the  Court.  

       As a matter of fact, the appellants were unable to produce even  a scrap of evidence indicating that the land of the respondent had been  taken over or acquired in any manner known to law or that he had  ever been paid any compensation in respect of such acquisition.  That  the land was thereafter constructed  upon, is not denied.  

       Having heard the learned counsel for the appellants, we are  satisfied that the case projected before the Court by the appellants is  utterly untenable and not worthy of emanating from any State which  professes the least regard to being a welfare State.   When we pointed  out to the learned counsel that, at this stage at least, the State should  be gracious  enough to accept its mistake and promptly pay the  compensation to the respondent, the State has taken an intractable  attitude and persisted in opposing what appears to be a just and  reasonable claim of the respondent.

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 3  

       Ours is a constitutional democracy and the rights available to  the citizens are declared by the Constitution.Although Article 19(1)(f)  was deleted by the 44th  Amendment to the Constitution, Article 300A  has been placed in the Constitution, which reads as follows: "300A- Persons not to be deprived of property save by  authority of law \026 No person shall be deprived of his  property save by authority of law."

       This is a case where we find utter lack of legal authority for   deprivation of the respondent’s property by the appellants who are  State authorities.  In our view, this case was an eminently fit one for  exercising the writ jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226  of the Constitution.  In our view, the High Court was somewhat  liberal in not imposing exemplary costs on the appellants. We would  have perhaps followed suit, but for the intransigence displayed  before us.           In the result, we dismiss the appeal with exemplary costs of   Rs.25,000/-.  The compensation payable as directed by the High  Court, together with the costs directed by us, shall be paid within a  period of 3 months from today.   

The respondent shall also be paid interest on the  compensation amount from 22.2.1999 till date of payment @ 9% per  annum.  

A compliance report shall be filed by the appellants with the  Registrar General of this Court. The appellants are charged  personally with the duty of ensuring compliance with the order of  this Court failing which they shall be answerable to this Court in  contempt jurisdiction.  

Copy of this order shall be transmitted to the Chief Secretary,  State of Uttar Pradesh for his information and appropriate action.