- (1.)A large chunk of land measuring 441.45 acres situate in the revenue estate of village Hisar District Hisar was notified by the State Government to be acquired for a public purpose, namely, for the development and utilisation as residential Sector 16 and parts of Sectors 11, 13, 15 and 17 of Hisar by the Haryana Urban Development Authority. The land sought to be acquired included in area of 45 kanals 6 marlas comprised in khasra Nos.4735(4-7), 4744(11-16), 4736(4-17), 4738(1-8), 4739(14-6), 4742(0-13), 4733(4-13) and 4734(3-6) (hereinafter referred to as the land in dispute). By a notification issued under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act (for short the Act), the State Government acquired a total area of 428.91 acres for the aforesaid public purposes including the land in dispute. It may be mentioned that the Central Government was recorded as owner of a part of the land in dispute in jamabandi for the year 1988-89 but it did not file any objections under Section 5-A of the Act. Punjab Wakf Board was recorded as owner of the remaining land in dispute in Khasra Nos.4733 min (3-3) and 4734(3-6). One Budh Ram son of Teku alias Tiku Ram was recorded as a tenant over the land in dispute in the column of occupation. Khasra No. 4744 was recorded as being in possession of Doordarshan Relay Kendra.
(2.)Petitioner who was the Land Acquisition Collector issued notices under Section 9 of the Act to all the persons interested in the land including the Central Government through Tehsildar (Sales), Hisar and it is stated that office of the Tehsildar refused to receive those notices. Notice was also issued to Budh Ram who was recorded as a tenant over the land in dispute and also to the Punjab Wakf Board which was recorded as owner of the part of the land in dispute and to Shri Vijay Kumar and Smt. Kamlesh who were recorded as tenants in the jamabandi for the year 1988-89. Budh Ram on receipt of the notice under Section 9 filed a claim statement alleging therein that he had acquired the occupancy rights over the land in dispute from the revenue court and that the mutation had been entered in his name. He also alleged that the custodian had no concern whatsoever with the land in his occupation. He pleaded that the land should be excluded from acquisition and in case it could not be released he be given compensation at the rate of Rs. 5,000/- per square yard. A copy of mutation No. 3411 dated 1.12.1993 was attached alongwith the statement of claim. It is also relevant to mention here that neither the Central Government nor Punjab Wakf Board filed any statement of claim in regard to the land in dispute. Petitioner as the Land Acquisition Collector then gave his award on 16.3.1994 determining the market value of the entire land at the rate of Rs. 3 lacs per acre for the land falling in category 'A', Rs. 2.5 lacs per acre for the land falling in category 'B' and Rs. 2 lacs per acre for land falling in category 'C, besides other statutory charges. It was also decided that payment would be made to the owners and Ors. interested persons according to their rights and shares as entered in the latest record of rights. It was also observed in the award that in case of any dispute as to the apportionment of compensation or any part thereof or as to the persons to whom the same or any part thereof was payable, the same would be referred to the Court for decision. Since Budh Ram was shown as an occupancy tenant in the aforesaid mutation the entire compensation of Rs. 28,16,344.70 paise in regard to the land in dispute was disbursed to him through his general power of attorney. This disbursement was made on the basis of the observations made by this Court in Lakhi Mal and Ors. v. Manak Lal and Ors., 1984 P.L.J. 410 wherein this Court decided that the entire com-, pensation was to be given to persons who possessed occupancy rights in the acquired land. Thereafter, the department raised a dispute regarding apportionment of the compensation alleging that Budh Ram was a non-occupancy tenant and that he was not entitled to the entire amount of compensation and that the Central Government was entitled to the same. Budh Ram also filed a reference application along with some others under Section 18 of the Act seeking enhancement in the amount of compensation. All the applications filed under Sections 18 and 30 of the Act were referred by the petitioner to the Land Acquisition Court (Additional District Judge), Hisar who disposed of the same by his order dated 12.5.1998. The petition for apportionment filed by Budh Ram is regard to land measuring 14 marlas comprised in Khasra No. 4742 was dismissed. However, the reference petition filed by him under Section 30 of the Act in regard to land comprised in Khasra Nos. 4733, 4734, 4735, 4736, 4738, 4739 and 4744 was accepted as he was found to be in joint cultivating possession in equal shares with one Roopa son of Hardeva. He was held entitled to compensation to the extent of 50% out of 3/4th share in the land whereas Punjab Wakf Board was held entitled to compensation of remaining 1/4th share. While disposing of the reference applications the learned Additional District Judge deprecated the conduct of the petitioner as Land Acquisition Collector and passed strictures against him. He also directed that a copy of his order be sent to the Chief Secretary, Government of Haryana for initiating departmental action against him as, according to the learned Additional District Judge, the petitioner unauthorisedly disbursed the amount of compensation to Budh Ram through his general attorney. It is against these observations that the present petition has been filed by the petitioner with a prayer that the observations as made in paragraphs 35 and 36 of the judgment be expunged. A further prayer has been made for a direction to the State of Haryana not to initiate any departmental action against the petitioner in pursuance to the directions given by the Additional District Judge.
(3.)We have heard counsel for the parties and are of the view that the observations made by the learned Additional District Judge were not called for on the facts and circumstances of the present case. By an order dated 30.4.1993 passed by the Assistant Collector 1st Grade, Hisar Budh Ram was granted occupancy rights over the land in dispute and this order was confirmed in appeal by the Collector on 7.10.1993. It is stated that the Union of India filed a revision petition against these orders in the Court of Commissioner, Hisar Division and the operation of both these orders was stayed on 21.2.1994. It is further stated that the stay order was communicated to the Land Acquisition Collector and in-spite of the stay order he wrongly disbursed the compensation of Rs. 28,16,344.70 paise including the share of the Punjab Wakf Board to Budh Ram through his general attorney and this, according to the learned Additional District Judge, was misconduct on the part of the petitioner. The case of the petitioner is that the stay order granted by the Commissioner was never communicated to him and was not in his knowledge when the compensation was disbursed on 22.3.1994/25.3.1994. We have gone through the file of the case and find that there is nothing on the record to show that the stay order was in the knowledge of the petitioner or that he was aware of any proceedings pending before the Commissioner. While disbursing the compensation to Budh Ram under the impression that he was an occupancy tenant on the basis of the orders passed by the Assistant Collector 1st Grade and the Collector, Hisar the petitioner took the precaution of obtaining an undertaking from Budh Ram through his general power of attorney to the effect that in the event of any claimant coming forward later on claiming payment of compensation the general power of attorney holder shall be personally liable for repayment of the amount received by him along with interest. If the order granting occupancy rights in favour of Budh Ram was stayed or even reversed in revision by the Commissioner, the petitioner cannot be said to be at fault in releasing the compensation unless it can be shown that the stay order or the proceedings were in his knowledge. As already observed, there is nothing to show that the petitioner had knowledge of the stay order or of the proceedings pending before the Commissioner. It cannot, therefore, be said that he acted with any motive in disbursing the compensation to Budh Ram. The learned Additional District Judge may have been justified in directing the Land Acquisition Collector to recover compensation from Budh Ram or his heirs but there was no justification for passing any strictures against the petitioner or requiring the State Government to take department action against him. Moreover, the petitioner was not a party by name before the Additional District Judge. We have, therefore, no hesitation in expunging the observations made against the petitioner in paragraph 35 and 36 of the impugned judgment of Additional District Judge, Hisar dated 12.5.1998. It is settled law that harsh or disparaging remarks are not to be made against persons and authorities whose conduct comes into consideration before Courts of law unless it is really necessary for the decision of the case. In the instant case, the petitioner bona fide acted on the basis of the decision of the revenue Courts whereby occupancy rights had been conferred on Budh Ram over the land in dispute. The disparaging remarks made against him and the directions given to the State Government to take departmental action are, as already observed above, wholly uncalled for.