M.Katju, R.S.Tripathi - (1.) HEARD counsel for the parties.
(2.) THE petitioners are bhumidhars of certain plots as mentioned in para 2 of the writ petition copies of khatauni are Annexures-1, 2 and 3. THEir grievance is that their land has been forcibly occupied and road has been constructed thereon without acquiring the land in accordance with the provisions of Land Acquisition Act, as stated in para 9 of the writ petition. No notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, has been issued in connection with the said land. THE petitioners have not been paid any compensation as stated in paras 10 and 12 of the writ petition. Counter-affidavit has been filed on behalf of respondents, 1, 2 and 3 and in para 5 of the same it has been stated that the land was acquired under the scheme known as Prime Minister Gram Sadak Yojna. Copy of said scheme is Annexure-1 to the counter-affidavit. It has not been shown that this scheme has been framed under any statutory enactment. As regards the allegation in para 9 of the writ petition that the petitioners' land has been acquired without following the procedure of the Land Acquisition Act, it has been alleged in para 13 of the counter-affidavit that : "That in reply to the contents of paragraphs No. 9, 10 and 11 of the writ petition, it is submitted in the disputed land there is no occasion for acquiring the land because the said road is being constructed under the PMGRY Scheme, 2002. Under this scheme there is no provision to give the compensation to the land owner." Thus, there is no denial in the counter-affidavit that the land was acquired without following the procedure of the Land Acquisition Act. It has also not been alleged in the counter-affidavit that the land was acquired under any other statute.
(3.) ARTICLE 300A of the Constitution, states that "no person shall be deprived of his property save by authority of law". In our opinion, the word 'law' in ARTICLE 300A means statutory law and not an executive order. In Bishambhar Dayal Chandra Mohan v. State of U. P., (1982) 1 SCC 39 and Bishan Das and others v. State of Punjab and others, AIR 1961 SC 1570, it was held that an executive order under ARTICLE 162 for seizure of any "property" without any authority of law violates ARTICLE 300A of the Constitution. A similar view was taken by a Division Bench of this Court in Santosh Kumar Tiwari v. District Magistrate, 1999 (1) AWC 661. Today, we have allowed similar Writ Petition No. 46187 of 2000 vide judgment and order dated 25.2.2004. For the reasons given in the aforesaid decisions, this petition is allowed. The respondents are directed to either restore the possession of the land in question to the petitioners forthwith or else pay the full market value of the land along with additional compensation under Section 23 (1A), 30% solatium under Section 23 (2) and interest at 12 per cent per annum thereon from the date possession was taken by the respondents till the date of payment and this payment must be made within six months from today. The market value will be calculated by the District Judge, Allahabad, in accordance with the Land Acquisition Act within four months from today, and payment of the same along with solatium and interest as directed above must be made within two months thereafter, i.e., within six month from today. The respondents shall in addition to the above also pay exemplary cost of Rs. 1.00 lakh (Rupees one lakh only) within one months from today to each of the petitioners for their illegal and arbitrary action. Petitioners shall submit copy of this order before the D.J., Allahabad forthwith.;