HARENDRA SWARUP BHATNAGAR Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(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on behalf of the respondents saying that the Notifications under which the petitioner's land was acquired have been withdrawn by a notification dated 2nd of July, 1980, and now his land is not being acquired and as such the petitioner is not entitled to any compensation.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.

(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.