PREMRAJ Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) On hearing counsel, we find that the point raised is not controversial in nature and perhaps even notice to the Union of India may not be necessary before disposal as the directions which we have to make are neither specific nor to the prejudice of the Union of India.

(2.) Exercise of the right of eminent domain is not in dispute. Petitioners have assumed themselves to be representatives of that group of land owners whose lands are acquired in the exercise of the right of eminent domain but compensation is not paid for years together following the publication of the preliminary notification under S. 4 (1 of the Act or even after dispossession. It has been indicated that even in respect of acquisitions of 1957 and 1962 litigation has still been pending in the referee court.

(3.) We would like to point out to the Union of India and the various states and Union territories which under the Land Acquisition Act have the powers to acquire operates of citizens in this country either for themselves or on behalf of others that under the Amending Act of 1984 the liability for compensation has been substantially enhanced and the same has to be paid out of ultimately the State coffers or the funds of the acquiring authority. Inaction and delay lead to increase of the said liability. It is, therefore, of paramount importance that public money should not be wasted by sitting over applications made by dissatisfied claimants asking for reference to the court.