District Court, Gurgaon: Dismissing a review petition , the Civil Judge Junior Division Vikrant J. ordered attachment of the office of Executive Engineer, PWD (B&R). The Court expressed displeasure on Gurugram's Public Works Department (‘PWD') and the Land Acquisition Collector's failure to compensate the landowner dispossessed in 1966.
The review petition was filed against the dismissal of an application which stated that the court has ignored the provisions of Land Acquisition Act, 1894 while making assessment of the compensation amount.
The Court quoted “Bureaucracy, the rule of no one, has become the modern form of despotism”, and said that this quote is often substantiated by the act and conduct of the Government functionaries including the chief officials of various departments who are though supposed to act not as agents or employees of the Government only, but as public servants too, having a larger responsibility in a democratic set up, ensuring that the grievances of a common man reach to the elected representatives and requisite policies can be framed or their grievances are redressed upholding the rule of law.
However, the Court said that the role of bureaucrats in modern times has changed from being ‘public servant' to ‘Government handmaid only'. They carry themselves in the demeanor which serves the interest of their de jure master often at the cost of oppression of the legal rights of the citizens, the de facto rulers in democracy.
Further, it was said that , despite having been ordered time and again to comply with decree dated 10-11-2016 for making payment of compensation against acquisition of the land as per provisions of Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 with all statutory benefits, the PWD, Gurugram and the Land Acquisition Collector have not released the payment, but have been beating around the same bush by moving one or the other application for assessment of the compensation amount knowing that the Court has already decided the objections and assessed the amount of compensation.
The Court said that since compliance of the decree dated 10-11-2016 was not made, the decree-holders were constrained to file an application for implementation of the decree. Almost 6 years have passed but the compliances are yet to be made. Objections were filed time and again, but the judgment debtors failed to get any favorable order from the Court. Nevertheless, the Court adopted a liberal approach by extending the time for compliance. However, this liberty was misconstrued by the judgment-debtors, them thinking that the Court of law functions as any other government office and the poor litigant would spare his entire life in the hope of getting his lawful claim.The Court also pointed out the amount of compensation calculated as per the prevailing policy governing acquisition of land, against which application filed on 20-12-2022 by the judgment debtors citing Court's ignorance of Land Acquisition Act.
The Court noted that the judgment-debtors were directed to make formal acquisition of the land under the relevant provisions of the Land Acquisition Act and make payment of compensation, but no such process was ever initiated.The Court held that the said review application is non-maintainable because the order passed by the Court is being assailed on merits without disclosing the patent defect in the order, warranting the Court to re-valuate the order. The objections are out of the scope of Order 47 of Code of Civil Procedure Code, 1908 With respect to detailed provisions of the Act regarding land acquisition compensation, the Court commented that themarket value of the land has to be assessed and then 30% solatium on such market value has to be paid under Section 23 (2) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 with additional benefit amount calculated at 12% per annum from the date of notification under Section 4 or the date of taking possession of the land whichever is earlier, as per Section 23 (1A). That being so, the date of possession assumes relevance. Therefore, the plea raised today that the decree-holders are not entitled for 12% per annum interest w.e.f. the year 1966 is contrary to the record and not maintainable.
The Court said that this review application is apparently another attempt to delay the execution proceedings. The judgment debtors first unlawfully occupied the land of poor villagers and are now shying away in making payment of compensation, whereas the government is making huge profits by using the land as public road The owners were dispossessed in the year 1966 and any malafide attempt by the judgment debtors to keep them away from enjoying the fruits of their lawful property requires an equally strong condemnation. Thus, the Court dismissed the review application with cost, and also attached the office of Executive Engineer under Order 21 Rule 32, CPC until the decree is implemented or for a period of 6 months, whichever is earlier.The matter will next be taken up on 23-01-2023
[Shri Kishan Sharma . v. PWD (B&R), Gurgaon. , 2023 SCC OnLine Dis Crt (Haryana) 2 order dated 16-01-2023]
Advocates who appeared in this case :
For Decree Holders – Advocate Gagan Prakash, Advocate D.C. Gupta
For Judgment Debtors – Advocate Himanshu Yadav ,Advocate Kavita Chauhan
