RAVI PARKASH Vs. HARYANA STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) MT. Arvind Singh, Assistant Advocate General, Haryana "appearing for the respondent State, informs us that the relief prayed for has been granted, ie. , the petitioners application under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act has been referred to the District Court, Karnal, vide memo No. 3172 dated 31-5-1990. According to him; the writ petition has been rendered infructuous. This may be, so. However, we find that the petitioners had fitted their reference application on 16-9- 1984. There is no reason or explanation for not sending this reference to the District Court for adjudication for all these six years. The interest of the petitioners has apparently been harmed to a great extent, even though they are entitled to payment of interest on the amount of compensation for all these years. As a matter of fact, this is our explanation that such like petitions/have to be repeatedly filed by the parsons whose land stands acquired and it has almost become routine with the Collector's office not to make references for years together and thereby to harass the claimants. Therefore, we find it advisable to burden the Land Acquisition Collectors, who have been in office from 16. 9. 1984 to 31. 3. 1990 with costs which we determine 'at Rs. 5000/- (Rupees five thousand only ). The same would, of course, be paid by them proportionately, i. e. , on the basis of the duration they respectively remained in office. In case these costs remain unpaid beyond three months, the petitioners would be entitled to execute this order.

(2.) THIS writ petition stands disposed of as indicated above.