- (1.) RAVI S. Dhawan, J. The events in this writ petition were occasioned thirty years ago. There were land acquisition proceedings and there is no issue on record that the land of the petitioner had not been acquired. In this regard, on record are notifications under Section 4 and Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The petitioner made no issue of the circumstances that his land be not acquired. The petitioner accepted the acquisition of his land. The petitioner was waiting for the compensation which was to be paid in pur suance of the land acquisition proceedings. As 18 years passed and the petitioner had not been delivered the compensation to which he was entitled under the law, he filed the present Writ Petition No. 12751 of 1983; Harendra Swarup Bhatnagar v. State of U. P. and another. This writ petition saw a decision by a Division Bench of this Court. The decision is : "petitioner's land situate in village Kharkhari, pargana Jwalapur, district Hardwar, was acquired by the State Government under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act. Possession was taken ; but, no compensation was paid to the petitioner. Ag grieved, the petitioner filed this petition challenging the validity of the acquisition and also for issue of a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to make award and pay compensation to the petitioner. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondents saying that the Notifications under which the petitioner's land was acquired have been withdrawn by a notification dated 2nd of July, 1980, and now his land is not being acquired and as such the petitioner is not entitled to any compensation. On behalf of the petitioner it is asserted that possession of the petitioner's land was taken long ago and the respondents have further made constructions over the same without paying any compensation to him. If that be so, the respondents are liable to pay compensation to the petitioner for taking and retaining the petitioner's land and they are duty bound to deliver back possession to the petitioner and also to remove constructions, if any, from the petitioner's land. We, accordingly, direct the respondents to remove the constructions, if any, and deliver the possession of the land to the petitioner forthwith within three months. As regards damages for the period during which the respondents occupied the petitioner's land in an unauthorised manner, the petitioner is entitled to compensation for the period he was deprived of the possession of his land. We hope the Collector will take immediate steps for payment of compensation to the petitioner. If the petitioner is not satisfied with the compensation paid to him or if no compensation is paid to him, he may file suit for recovery of the same. With these observations we dispose of the petition. Sd/- Hon. K. N. Singh, J. Sd/- Hon. R. K. Shukla, J. 8-4-1985"
(2.) THE State of Uttar Pradesh accepted the decision as it did not at any stage, nor even today, impugn the decision of the High Court by a Special Leave Petition before the Supreme Court. THE decision of the High Court was a routine examination of the state of the record on a writ of certiorari, and of delivering justice for payment of compensation for acquiring the petitioner's land. As a consequence of the land acquisition proceedings, the petitioner saw himself out of possession of land. In the decision of the High Court there was no matter of public importance, but a certiorari judgment correcting an error in public action. THE judgment of 8th April, 1985, was rendered one year after a rule of interim mandamus, dated 17th May, 1984, when the direc tion to determine compensation was not complied with by the State respondents. As reasonable time passed the petitioner reminded the State of Uttar Pradesh that in pursuance and as a consequence of the judgment of the High Court he is entitled to be paid the compensation as consideration for the land which had been acquired by the State of Ultar Pradesh. The petitioner received no response from the State respondents and as the judgment of the High Court rested so did the petitioner request, and the compensation and possession, both eluded him. By an application dated 4th September, 1987 the petitioner reported to the Court that despite the decision of the High Court at the hands of the State there has, in effect, been inaction creating complications in the case and it may not be feasible to implement the decision. The petitioner prayed that the order and direction of the Court may only stand, for the payment of damages and compensation. On this application of the petitioner a Division Bench granted one month's time to the State of Uttar Pradesh to file a counter affidavit. As the State of Uttar Pradesh would not file a counter affidavit on 17 November, 1989, two years after this application had been moved, a Division Bench issued notice to the Collector/district Magistrate, Saharanpur to show cause why proceedings for contempt ought not to be drawn for not complying with the order of the High Court as from the date of the judgment i. e. 8 April, 1985. As if this was not sufficient, instead of complying with the judgment of the High Court, what was done by the State respondents, was to move an application, in effect, praying that the judgment dated 8 April, 1985 itself and the subsequent and consequential orders be recalled. The other orders of which recall was being sought are, the order dated 17 May, 1984, by which an interim mandamus had been issued to Collector, Saharanpur to pay compensation and the order of 28th April, 1989 by which the High Court had directed that the matter be compromised with the petitioner. The order of the Bench issuing a show cause Notice to the District Magistrate/collector, Saharanpur for non-compliance of the order of the High Court is relevant, alive and stands without cause being shown to the satisfaction of the High Court. This is clear from the subsequent orders of the High Court.
(3.) IN effect the State Government, now, was seeking review of the High Court's judgment of 8 April, 1985 when by an Application No. 8950 of 1990 filed on 10 April, 1990, it sought review of the judgment after five years instead of implementing it. IN so far as the prayer is concerned, the application does not say so that it is a review application put, effectively there was a prayer that the judgment be recalled. The application was never presented, nor processed for reporting before the Stamp Reporter as a review, as required under the Rules of Court. Nor was any stamp paid on it as a review application. Supporting the application was a counter affidavit. This counter affidavit to the writ petition was being filed five years after the judgment. It is not that the State respondents did not have an opportunity to file a return to the writ petition as the record reveals that, for whatever it is worth, a 'short counter affidavit' had been filed to answer the writ petition. The underlying circumstances, now reveal that this lacunae had been tailored. Filing a counter affidavit five years subsequent to the judgment and eight years after notice of motion was not so much an aspect as becoming wiser by the events by at tempting to lock the stables after the horse has bolted. Indeed if the respondents were aggrieved by the judgment and had no intention to comply with it, they were free to impugn the judgment before the Supreme Court. This they did not do. The cause which was to be satisfied or else face contempt when the High Court sought an explanation by its order of 17th November, 1989, still escapes the record. The High Court had not given an opportunity to file a counter affidavit five years after judgment, but an extended opportunity to comply. The respondents as were arrayed to the writ petition were (1) The State of Uttar Pradesh (2) The Collector/district Magistrate, Saharanpur, and (3) Collector/district Magistrate, Haridwar. Relegating the decision back in reference to time when the 'short counter affidavit' was filed while the writ petition was pending, the record reveals that this affidavit had been filed not by any of the arrayed respondents but by one K. S. Rahi, an Ahalmad in the office of the Special Land Acquisition Officer, Meerut. A clerk answered the writ petition on behalf of the respondents ; this was the measure of responsibility m offering a defence to the writ petition. When the review of the judgment was sought, each of the respondents so ar rayed again evaded answering the show cause order dated 17 November, 1989 of the Division Bench. A show cause is by obligation of law to be answered by the person to whom it is issued. It was a warning of an initiation of con tempt proceedings by the High Court, a superior Court of record. The Collec tor/district Magistrate, Saharanpur to whom the show cause notice had been issued, instead of showing cause himself, again showed disrespect to the High Court and now sent an Amin at the Land Acquisition Office, to show cause on his behalf. The Amin, a clerk, acting as the agent and representative of the District Magistrate and Collector, was only sent to tell the High Court to recall it's judgment on the writ petition.;