CS to be held liable for non-compliance of court order in land acquisition case

Prayagraj: Allahabad High Court has held that highest officer in govt will be liable for contempt proceedings against him/ her if a writ court order was not complied with due to confusion in administrative machinery.Petitioner Vinay Kumar Singh's land was acquired in 1977 and award for compensation passed in 1982 and 1984. No compensation was paid, however, while petitioner claimed to be in possession. After commencement of the 2013 Act, compensation was deposited in govt treasury but petitioner refused to accept it.Relying on Supreme Court decision in Pune Municipal Corporation And Another Vs Harakchand Misirimal Solanki And Others, Singh contended since acquisition proceedings had lapsed in terms of section 24(2) of the 2013 Act, he had represented before the authority to release plots to him, but no action was taken.Singh filed writ petition and writ court held acquisition proceedings to have lapsed since deposit made was inadequate. Since the plots were not returned to the petitioner despite the writ court order, it filed a contempt application wherein time was granted to officers to comply. When no compliance was made, petitioner preferred a second contempt application.Land was acquired by irrigation department but later transferred to department of Urban Development, UP govt. Principal sectary of the department was impleaded in contempt application. Despite assuring court, order was not complied with. Noting that the highest authority in land acquisition matters was chief secretary, UP govt, court refrained from charging him and gave him one month time to comply with the order of the writ court or be present before the high court on the next date for framing of charges on the next date. In order dated Nov 28, court directed to list case on Jan 5 for next hearing. "In case of non-compliance because of any confusion in administrative machinery of state govt regarding the department or officer responsible to ensure compliance would make highest officer of the state responsible and liable in contempt," added Justice Salil Kumar Rai.The section 24(2) states that in the case of land acquisition proceedings, if a developer or govt fails to take possession of land acquired under the old law for a period of five or more than five years, or if compensation is not paid to the original owner of land, process of land acquisition will stand lapsed. The procedure will then need to be re-initiated under LAAR, 2013 thereby allowing the owner to get fair compensation.Holding that state authorities had willfully disobeyed court order, Justice Rai observed, "Evidently, non-compliance by opposite parties of the order passed by this court is not bona fide. The non-compliance is intentional, conscious, calculated and a deliberate act with full knowledge of the consequences. It is apparent that non-compliance was a calculated measure with an intention to deprive the petitioner/applicant the fruits of his success in litigation against the state."