- (1.) THE claimants/ petitioners R. K. Malik and others have filed this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution challenging the impugned order, dated 14th May, 1993 (contained in Annexure 2 to the writ petition) passed by the Land Acquisition Directorate, Luck-now.
(2.) SHORT facts leading to this petition lie in narrow compass and they are as under: Petitioner's land have been ac quired under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act (for short the Act) by issu ing necessary notifications under Sections 4,6,9 and 17 etc. of the Act and pursuant to the same possession of petitioner's land was taken over by the Government as long back as on 11-6-91 but no award as con templated under Section 11 of the Act determining the compensation was passed even after lapse of more than 5 years. How ever, it is submitted that the Special Land Acquisition Officer prepared the award in consonance with the provisions of Section 11 of the Act in the month of May 1993 and sent the same for approval of the Land Acquisition Directorate but vide im pugned order, dated 14th May, 1993, the Land Acquisition Directorate rejected the same and thereby the petitioners stand deprived of their property without getting the compensation for the same. Hence, petitioners have approached this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution for redressal of their grievances. Learned Standing Counsel considering the facts and circumstances of the lease that the land in question has been (acquired and possession of the same has (already been taken over by State but no (compensation has been paid till date, did [not raise strong objections but submitted It hat the Land Acquisition Directorate has every authority under law to pass ap propriate orders.
(3.) HAVING heard learned counsel for the parties we are of the opinion that this petitioner deserves to be allowed. In Satyendra Prasad Jain and others v. State of UP and Ors, JT 1993 (5) SC 385 : 1995 (2) JCLR 132 (All), their Lordships of Apex Court have ruled (vide paras 16 and 17 of the Judgment) as under: "16. Further, Section 17 (3-A) postulates that the owner will be offered an amount equivalent to 80% of the estimated compensation for the land before the Government takes possession of it under Section 17 (1 ). Section11-A cannot be so construed as to leave the Government holding title to the land without the obligation to determine compensation, make an award and pay to the owner the deference between the amount of the award and one amount of 80% of the estimated compensation "17. In the instant case, even that 80% of the estimated compensation was not paid to the appellants although Section 17 (3-A) required that it should have been paid before possession of the said land was taken but that does not mean that the possession was taken illegally or that the said land did not thereupon vest in the 1st respondent. It is, at any rate not open to the third respondent, who, as the letter of the Spe cial Land Acquisition Officer, dated 27th June, 1990 shows, failed to make the necessary monies available and who has been in occupa tion of the said land ever since its possession was taken illegally and that, therefore, the said land has not vested in the first respondent and the first respondent is under no obligation to make an award. " In the instant case before us, the remarkable aspect of the matter is that the petitioners were not only deprived of their title over the land which was the only source of their livelihood as long back as on 11-6-1991 but were also divested from the possession of the same by virtue of notifications under Sections 16 and 17 of the Act and despite that even after expiry of complete 5 years, the State could not ensure payment of compensation to them in accordance with the provisions of Sec tion 11 of the Act. This is how the Welfare State has behaved with its poor peasants. The Welfare State is always expected to be fair and reasonable and to behave in a just and proper manner and not in a manner in which a dishonest litigant behaves. Under the provisions of the Act a statutory duty cast on the State is to pay the compensa tion as early as possible and atleast 80% of the estimated compensation must have been paid before taking over of the posses sion but in the instant case even after 5 years of the taking over of possession no compensation has been paid, on the other hand the award proposed by the Special Land Acquisition Officer has been disap proved.;