NIRMAL KHOSLA Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The under mentioned history of this case which has led to the filing of the present appeal under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent against the judgment of a learned Single Judge of this Court dismissing the writ petition of the appellant on the short ground that it involved disputed questions of fact and a dispute regarding limitation unfortunately reveals that even after the independence of the country and the establishment of a socialistic welfare State committed to the rule of law, some Government agencies continue to have a bureaucratic outlook, and their conscience is not pricked by mercilessly trampling over the legal rights of the citizens and then trying to outwit them by defenceless defences.

(2.) Possession of the land belonging to the appellant was taken over by the Punjab Government through the Engineer of the Aerodrome at Patiala in 1935 for State purposes. Proceedings for determining compensation payable for the acquisition of land were started, but some years later the file relating to those proceedings was lost in the Government's office. The appellant thereafter went on representing to the Government to determine and pay the compensation for her land and proceedings were restarted after many years. The Collector, Patiala, who was dealing with the matter ultimately passed an order, dated November 2, 1964 (Annexure 'B' to the writ petition), wherein it was observed that no order for acquiring the land was available on the file, and since the land-owner had not produced a copy of the notification for acquisition of the land it was not necessary to proceed any further with the matter relating to the determination of compensation. It is a matter of regret that the Collector thought that it lay on the land-owner to produce evidence of acquisition of the land belonging to her when it was the admitted case of the Government that the land had in fact been acquired and the appellant had in fact been dispossessed of the same since 1935, and it was not disputed that the land was (as it continues till today) in the possession of the State. Be that as it may, the fact remains that the appellant went on representing for determination and payment of compensation to her till February 11, 1971. No dent having been created on the mind of the concerned officials of the State, the appellant was driven to file a writ petition in this Court for the issuance of a writ of mandamus against the respondents (who are the Union of India, the State of Punjab, the Secretary, Patiala Aviation Club, and the Collector, Patiala) directing them to do their duty in the above-mentioned matter in accordance with law, and to proceed with the acquisition of the land in question according to the provisions of law, and to pay due compensation for the same to the appellant or in the alternative to restore possession of the land in question to the appellant along with damages for use and occupation thereof for the entire period during which the appellant has been deprived of the same.

(3.) At the hearing of the writ petition, an objection was raised which was noticed in the judgment of the learned Single Judge in the following words :--