R.A.SHARMA, J. - (1.) By Notification dated 14-3-1986, issued under sub-section (1) of Section 4 and sub-section (4) of Section 17 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). 1.14 Acres land situate in village Garhi, district Dehradun was proposed to be acquired by the Government of U.P, for construction of hospital for the employees of Oil and Natural Gas Commission Dehradun (hereinafter referred to as the petitioner). Declaration under Section 6 of the Act was issued by Notification dated 11-9-1986. The above Notifications were challenged by the tenants of the land by means of Writ Petition No. 16847 of 1986 before this Court, which was dismissed by judgment dated 29-8-1991, against which Special Leave Petition was filed before the Supreme Court, which was also dismissed on 30-1-1992. After the dismissal of the writ petition by this Court, petitioner requested the Special Land Acquisition Officer, Dehradun and the district administration for handing over the possession of the acquired land to it. The Special Land Acquisition Officer vide his letter dated 8-11-1991 informed the petitioner that the valuation of the land has to be determined before handing over its possession. Thereafter by letter dated 11-12-1991 the Special Land Acquisition Officer informed the petitioner that a sum of Rs. 20 Lacs has been estimated as compensation, which includes market value of the land, 30% solatium, 12% interest and other expenses, which is to be paid by it. Petitioner deposited Rs. 20 Lacs by Bank Draft Dated 30-6-1991. Even after the deposit of the above amount, possession of the land was not given to the petitioner in spite of the request made by it, instead by letter dated 23-7-1993 the Special Land Acquisition Officer demanded an additional sum Rs. 12.50 Lacs from the petitioner. Petitioner, however, did not deposit this additional amount and raised objections against it. As award under Section 11 of the Act was made on 26-8-1993 by the Special Land Acquisition Officer, fixing the compensation at Rs. 26,41,466.95 p. the demand for the additional amount of Rs. 12.50 Lacs was not pressed and another demand for Rs. 09,07,222.14 p. was raised against the petitioner by letter dated 1-12-1993. Recovery proceedings for recovering a sum of Rs. 9,07,222.14 P. as arrears of land revenue, was accordingly issued against the petitioner. In pursuance of recovery proceedings a citation to appear before the Recovery Officer, was also issued to it. Petitioner has thereafter filed this writ petition, praying for quashing the recovery proceedings. Further prayer directing the respondents to demarcate and hand over the possession of the acquired land to the petitioner has also been made.
(2.) Respondents have filed counter affidavit and petitioner has filed rejoinder affidavit in reply thereto. Petitioner has also made an application supported by an affidavit, mentioning therein that during the pendency of the writ petition, the amount of Rs. 9,7,222.14 p. demanded by the respondents, regarding which recovery proceedings were initiated, has been paid by it on 14-1-1994. However, respondents are insisting for payment of recovery charges said to have been incurred by them for recovering the aforesaid amount of Rs. 9,7,222.14 p. from the petitioner. We have heard learned counsel for the parties.
(3.) Under Section 17 of the Act the Collector has been authorised to take possession of the acquired land upon tendering payment of 80% compensation for such land as estimated by him. Respondents had estimated a sum of Rs. 20 Lacs as compensation and required the petitioner to deposit the same. In pursuance of this demand petitioner deposited Rs. 20 Lacs in June, 1992. In spite of the deposit of the above sum by the petitioner, the acquired land was neither demarcated nor its possession was delivered to it, even though petitioner had made repeated requests for that purpose from time to time. Respondents, although fixed several dates for demarcation and delivery of possession of the land; but on one pretext or the other the dates were adjourned by them without demarcation and delivery of possession of the land. Immediately after deposit of Rs. 20 Lacs by the petitioner, it was the duty of the respondents to demarcate and deliver the possession of the acquired land to it. From the perusal of the pleadings of the parties as well as the various documents annexed thereto, it is apparent that the respondents were delaying the delivery of possession of the land without any reasonable cause. Action of the respondents in not handing over the possession of the acquired land to the petitioner immediately after June, 1992, when the petitioner deposited Rs. 20 Lacs was absolutely unjustified and arbitrary.;