Swatanter Kumar, J.
1. The petitioner are the owners of agricultural land in Khasra No. 1715/1613/558 entirely measuring about 10 bighas 14 bids was in the revenue estate of Village Bahapur, New Delhi to the extent of their respective shares. On 10.5.02 the Government had issued a notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act) for acquiring the land including the said land of the petitioners afore-mentioned. In furtherance to this notification declaration under Section 6 of the Act was issued on 8.5.03. Upon following the prescribed procedure, the Land Acquisition Collector made his award under Section 11 of the Act on 1.5.05 determining the market value payable to the claimants of the acquired land. Petitioner No. 3 had died and in the revenue records the names of his legal representatives have been mutated, however, the respondent with malafide intentions mentioned the name of the petitioner No. 3 in the revenue records. As the compensation payable to the claimants have been determined, the petitioners made two separate applications one for receiving compensation of the adjudicated amount and the other for enhancement of compensation under Section 18 of the Act. These were submitted by the petitioners on 14.6.05. According to the petitioners, the awarded compensation comes to Rs. 58,5,049.53/-. The respondent issued notices under Section 12(2) and 32(1) of the Act to the petitioners treating them as persons interested in the award. After filing of the applications, the petitioners have been approaching the respondents for payment of their dues. Though the respondents had been assuring the petitioners that they would pay the awarded compensation to the claimants verbally but had not disbursed the payment. According to the petitioners, the respondents had taken the possession of the property long back and they have placed photographs on record to show that the land in question is in occupation of the respondents.
2. The petitioners then on 1.8.05 issued a reminder to the respondents claiming the amount of compensation payable to them. A copy of the reminder has been annexed to the petition as Annexure P-6. It in turn refers to the application filed by them on 14.6.05 which was submitted to the respondents vide diary No. 2220. As the petitioners have not been paid the awarded compensation by the Collector till date they have filed the present writ petition and, in fact, taken the ground that the action of the respondents is contrary to Article 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India as well as the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act. It is also their case that the entire acquisition is malafide and is in violation of Article 300(A) of the Constitution of India.
3. On the basis of the above stated pleadings, the petitioners claimed that the respondents be directed to pay the entire compensation in terms of the award dated 1.5.05 Along with interest @ 18% from the date of award till date of payment without prejudice to their rights and contentions raised in the petition under Section 18 of the Act. Notice was issued to the respondents and after number of dates a short counter affidavit showing the compliance to the order of the Court dated 20.1.06 was filed on behalf of the respondents. In Paragraphs 4 to 7 of this affidavit, it has been stated that payment of various amounts due to the respective petitioners on account of compensation, solarium, additional compensation under Section 23(1-A) and the interest as computed under Section 34 of the Act has been paid to the petitioners except that an amount of Rs. 81,588.77/- is due and payable to petitioner nos 1, 2 and 3 and the said amount has not been paid till the date of filing of the affidavit as the same has not been sent by the DDA who is stated to be the beneficiary authority under the acquisition. This affidavit of the respondents is completely silent as to when the payment was made and when the possession of the land was taken by the respondents. An affidavit has also been filed on behalf of the Government of NCT of Delhi wherein it is stated that the possession of the acquired land was taken and handed over to the beneficiary authority simultaneously on 29.7.05 after the award was made by the Collector. Land Acquisition Collector only take possession at behest of the beneficiary authority. It is also stated that if the payment is not made within one year of taking possession, the interest payable under Section 34 will be 9% and for delayed payment beyond the period of one year interest will be payable @ 34% per annum. The Land Acquisition Collector had written letters to DDA on 4.7.05 for payment of compensation and reminders thereto were sent on 6.9.05, 21.10.05 and 30.11.05. The compensation has been released by the DDA to the Department of Land and Building and it was stated that it is expected by the Land Acquisition Collector that the compensation would be released by the Land Acquisition Collector within a week. It is evident from the above affidavit and counter affidavits filed by the parties that the award in relation to the acquired land was made on 1.5.05 which gave right to the petitioners to claim compensation for their acquired land. The respondents themselves had issued notices under Section 12(2) of the Act calling upon the claimants to receive the compensation payable to them as determined in the award. These notices had required the claimants to be present on 6.7.05. The notice stated as under:
If you are willing to accept it, you should appear before me personally or by authorized agent on or before 6.7.2005 on any working day. Interest will not be payable in case of failure.
The obvious influence of the above notices was that the compensation had been received by the Collector and he had called upon the claimants to receive the compensation failing which they were not entitled to receive any interest. According to the claimants, the possession had been taken even earlier but as per the records of the respondents, the possession had been taken on 29.7.05. Despite the fact that the possession had been taken and the claimants had filed their applications in June, 06 for payment of compensation and the notices issued under Section 12(2) of the Act require the claimants to receive compensation on 6.7.05, the compensation was not paid to the claimants till 19.1.06. Even on 19.1.06 the entire amount of compensation admittedly payable to the claimants was not paid. Each of the petitioners was entitled to receive another sum of Rs. 81,588.77/- from the departments.
Notices of these petitions were issued by a Division Bench of this Court vide its order dated 22.8.05. Despite pendency of the writ petitions before this Court, payment was not made for nearly five months. Even when the payment was made the entire amounts payable to the claimants were not paid and each of the petitioners is stated to be entitled to receive a sum of Rs. 81,588.77/- which ought to have been paid to them on 6.7.05 has not been paid merely because the DDA had not given the amounts to the Collector. Each of the authorities is trying to shift the blame to the other. According to the Government the amounts were not sent by the DDA despite its reminders dated 6.9.05, 21.10.05 and 30.11.05 and it was stated that as and when the amounts were received they will immediately disburse the same to the claimants and even balance amount has not been sent till today as such the fault is attributable to the DDA. While according to the DDA they had sent the amount of Rs. 58,5050/- to the Deputy Secretary, LA, Land and Building Department, Vikas Bhawan, New Delhi on 16.11.05 which was partially disbursed to the claimants on 16.11.05. There is no averment on record by the DDA as to why the payments were not made. The amounts were not sent by the beneficiary authority to the acquiring authority for all that period. Of course, during the arguments it was stated that delay is on the part of the Land Acquisition Collector and the amount of Rs. 81,000/- according to the DDA is not payable in terms of Section 34 of the Act.
As is evident from the record of the Court file, various orders were passed by the Court calling the Land Acquisition Collector in Court for requiring him to explain as to why the amounts were not paid to the petitioners. These orders started from 14.12.05 and continue till the disposal of the petition.
Growing number of cases which are being filed by the claimants for non-payment of the awarded compensation to them for acquisition of their land is a matter of concern. Everyday cases are listed before the Court where the compensation is not paid to the claimants because of inaction on the part of the various functionaries in the hierarchy of the Government including the beneficiary authorities. Its a matter of regret that the interest of the owners is ignored by the Government despite the fact that these are cases of compulsive acquisition and in some cases even source of livelihood of the claimants is taken away. In case of the land pre-dominantly used for agricultural purposes, this problem has more adverse affects. The consequences of such inaction on the part of the authorities concerned has a dual adverse effect on the entire concept and scheme of Land Acquisition including the public exchequer. Firstly, in such cases because of delay the Government has to pay interest on the awarded amount of compensation particularly under Section 34. Such amounts in some cases are substantial. Even today in the commercial transactions, the banks are not giving the interest which is the import of the Statute, entitling the claimants to claim interest @ 9% or 15% as the case may be, from the date of taking of possession. implicate inaction on the part of the respondents should hardly be permitted at any quarters of the Government to cause such a huge loss to the public exchequer, because delay and mostly inordinate delay causes a great hardship to the claimants whose lands and even source of livelihood is taken away, may be for a larger public interest. Deprivation of property in accordance with law is permissible but undue delay is implicate inaction of the authorities, which would tantamount to adding insult to the injury. This exposes owner/Bhumidars to economic hardship the consequences of which could even be fatal.
Both these adverse consequences can easily be avoided by the authorities concerned by timely and coordinated action. The authorities are required to have a more practical and pragmatic approach to provide solution to this persisting problem. Various files of the authorities which have been produced before us in number of cases do not reflect any better state of affairs but mostly a mere inaction on the part of the concerned officers/officials in the Government hierarchy. We have already stated that large number of writ petitions are being filed in this Court claiming the similar reliefs. In most of the cases, the respondents do not even dispute the claim of the petitioner based on awarded compensation. Let us examine the law in regard to public accountability for default of performance of statutory and public duties which are relatable to the powers vested in the administrative and executive authorities under the provisions of this Act. Reference in this regard can be made to the judgment of this Court of the same date in the case of Sukhbir Singh Tyagi and Ors. v. Lieutenant Governor and Ors. WP(C) 22895-927/2005 where the court held as under:
4. Various provisions of the Land Acquisition Act impose a duty upon the authorities to act within a specified time. Consequences of violation of such duty normally would be spelled out in the statute itself, even if it is no so stated. Aggrieved party cannot be said to be without remedy. The duty imposed by the statute may also be actionable by the express terms of the statute or on the principle that an action lies for any indictable wrong. There is clear distinction between the duty and the power. However, a duty may be implied from a power. The Courts may not look for or require a party to establish negligence as a fact because breach of statutory duty itself is a proof of negligence. The authorities enjoy considerable discretion under the provisions of the Act. Thus, it requires adherence to higher standards of care and ensuring that the public at large or a class of persons, subjected to their discretion are not exposed to undue delay and financial losses as a result of inaction of the authorities. The powers vested in the public officers under the provisions of the Act includes both statutory and administrative powers taking within its ambit the corresponding duty obligations to effectively carry out the object of the Act. If the public officers or public bodies fail to perform any public duty with which they have been charged, an order of mandamus will lie to compel them to carry it out and in some circumstances even if the time to perform under the statute had not left. In accordance with this principle, writ of mandamus will issue to the Government Officials in their capacity as public officers exercising executive duties, which affect the rights of the private persons. Occasionally and now more often mandamus may also be sought to enforce the non-statutory duties. The statutory duty must be performed without any reasonable delay. Delay in action, particularly grant of relief to which a private person is entitled to, would vest the affected party with further consequences while making the officer responsible for his latches. Action taken by persons holding public offices is to be inconformity with the basic rule of law and standard policies and must be free of arbitrariness. The Supreme Court in the case of Shivsagar Tiwari v. Union of India and Ors. : (1996)6SCC558 even held a minister responsible personally for illegal allotments as exercise of power tantamount to misuse of power.
5. Breach of duty is an actionable wrong. Rights of the authorities and their duties are co-related. Violation of one's right is the breach of other's duty. In some cases, the department may be called upon to examine the conduct of its various officers as the department would be responsible for their action/inaction. Breach of duty may not essentially result from wrong doing, which may arise from negligence, failing to act timely or even by breach of duty under the statute, the duty may be specifically envisaged in the language of the provision or it may arise by necessary interpretation applying the concept of reasonable conduct. The expansion of rights would lead to expansion of bonds of liability. They are co-related and inter-dependent. Expansion of one would result in widening result of other. Of course, they will have to be examined with reference to the needs and situations, which are contemplated under the law. Negligence or inaction have larger consequences and implies an obligation on the authorities vested with the powers to act with greater and higher standards of care. If there is a right under the law, there must be a remedy for its violation as law commands nothing vainly- Lex nil frustra jubet.
6. Another facet of statutory duty is to impose negative obligations on the State not to encroach upon the rights of the individual or to frustrate what is granted under law to the citizen. Declaration of rights would be meaningless unless there is effective machinery for enforcement of the rights. Remedy is the essence of a right. A right really become effective and meaningful when its enforceability is accepted by the procedure of law. The legality or illegality of a State action, particularly when they are acting in furtherance to the statutory powers vested in them, would be subject to judicial review, not in its narrowest sense. Wherever a cause is relatable to breach of statutory or implied duty of a public officer, the rule of law would essentially provide for a remedy even if it is not so specifically spelled out in the provisions of the Act. Arbitrariness and unreasonableness being facets of Article 14 are available as grounds not only for questioning an administrative action but in certain cases may even invalidate subordinate legislation. Timely action is the essence of government functioning and unreasonable delay questions the very correctness of such orders. Wherever the records offer no Explanationn for prolonged unreasonable delay, the equity will tilt more in favor of the petitioners than uphold the action of the authorities to be correct, being done in the normal course of its business.
Books Referred to:
2002(3) Scc 7
: 2005CriLJ1413
1996 6 scc 1390
'The Law of torts' - 9th Edition
by Ramaswamy Iyer.
'Law of torts' - 12th Edition
By Salmond & Heuston
Halsbury's Laws of England - 4th Edition
By Lord Hailsham of St. Marylebone.
7. Concept of public accountability has been applied to the decision making process in the government by the courts for a considerable time. This concept takes in its ambit imposition of costs and its recovery from the officer concerned for their negligence or acts of prolonged, unexplained delays running into years. In the case of State of Andhra Pradesh vs. Food Corporation of India 2004 (13) Scc 53, the Court directed as under:
We are shocked as to the manner in which the State Government is filing petitions in this Court resulting not only in wasting the time of this Court and all others concerned but in total waste of public money. The impugned orders have been challenged after more than eight years with almost no Explanationn, as is evident from the paragraph reproduced above.
In this view, while dismissing the applications seeking condensation of delay, we direct that enquiry be made forthwith by the State Government as to the person responsible for this state of affairs, recover from such person the costs involved in filing these petitions and submit the report to this Court within a period of four weeks.
8. Administrative or executive actions are subject matter of judicial review. Noticing the significance of scope of judicial review in this regard and bureaucracy accountability, the Supreme Court in the case of State of Bihar vs. Subhash Singh : [1997]1SCR850 held as under:
In our democracy governed by the rule of law, the judiciary has expressly been entrusted with the power of judicial review as sentinal in qui vive. Basically judicial review of administrative actions as also of legislation is exercised against the actions of the State. Since the State or public authorities act in exercise of their executive or legislative power, they are amenable to the judicial review....
The normal principle that the permanent bureaucracy is accountable to the political executive is subject to judicial review. The doctrine of full faith and credit applied to the acts done by the officers and presumptive evidence of regularity of official acts done or performed, is apposite in faithful discharge of duties to elongate public purpose and to be in accordance with the procedure prescribed. It is now settled legal position that the bureaucracy is also accountable for the acts done in accordance with the rules when judicial review is called to be exercised by the Courts. The hierarchical responsibility for the decision is their in-built discipline. But the Head of the Department/designated officer is ultimately responsible and accountable to the Court for the result of the action done or decision taken. Despite this, if there is any special circumstance absolving him of the accountability or if someone else is responsible for the action, he needs to bring them to the notice of the Court so that appropriate procedure is adopted and action taken. The controlling officer holds each of them responsible at the pain of disciplinary action. The object thereby is to ensure compliance of the rule of law.....A member of the permanent executive, is enjoined to comply with the orders of the Court passed in exercise of the judicial review. When a Court issues certain directions to the executive authorities it is expected that the authorities would discharge their duties expeditiously as enjoined under the rules and as per the directions. If they do not discharge the duty, necessarily, they are required to give Explanationn to the Court as to the circumstances in which they could not comply with the direction issued by the Court or if there was any unavoidable delay, they should seek further time for compliance. When, neither of the steps have been taken by the officer in that regard the Court can impose the costs personally against him for non-compliance of the order.....It is known fact that in transaction of the Government business, none would own personal responsibility and decisions are leisurely taken at various levels. It is not uncommon that delay would be deliberately caused in filing appeal or revision by Government to confer advantage to the opposite litigant; more so when stakes involved are high or persons are well connected/influential or due to obvious considerations. The Courts, thereforee, do not adopt strict standard of proof of every day's delay. The imposition of costs on officers for filing appeals causes public injustice and gives the manipulators an opportunity to compound the camouflage. Secondly, the imposition of costs personally against the officers would desist to pursue genuine cases of public benefit or importance or of far-reaching effect on public administration or exchequer deflecting course of justice.
9. The principle of care, maintenance of higher caution, expeditious decision-making process in exercise of statutory powers, public accountability and transparency are also applicable to the various proceedings under the law of acquisition. Various provisions of the Act could be referred to demonstrate that the exercise of powers emanating from statutory provisions is coupled with public obligation, to protect the rights of the land owners.
10. The Land Acquisition Collector is expected to conduct a survey prior to the issuance of notification under Section 4 of the Act for acquisition of the land. Sub-section (2) of Section 4 empowers the Officer to enter upon any property for the purposes of survey and other acts stated in that provision. The Legislature has even taken precautions to make a statutory provision for payment of compensation for any damage which may be done during completion of such duty imposed upon the Officer, under the provisions of Section 4 of the Act. In regard to deficiency of the amount so offered or tendered, the dispute could be referred to the Collector or the Chief Revenue Officer. After having issued declaration under Section 6 of the Act, the next effective step to be taken by the authorities is to issue notices to the interested persons under Section 9 of the Act. It is intended to convey to the public, the intention of the Government to take possession and calling upon them to make claims in regard to the lands acquired. The Collector would make an enquiry and then pronounce his award as contemplated under Section 11 of the Act. The Collector is to take approval of the government before the award could be made enforceable. Section 11(a) was introduced by the Amending Act 68 of 1984 to require the authorities to make an award within 2 years from the date of publication of declaration. The consequences of non-compliance were to the extent that entire acquisition proceedings shall lapse. The only Explanationn in providing the period of 2 years was the exclusion of the period during which orders of stay passed by the court were in operation. After pronouncing of the award under Section 11 of the Act, unless the case was covered under the provisions of Section 17 of the Act, the Collector was to take possession of the lands under Section 16, and such lands would vest in the government, free from all encumbrances. After the award is made the Collector is required to give immediate notice of his award to the persons interested who were not personally present before him so that the compensation could be awarded to the rightful claimants. Then the award of the Collector in regard to apportionment, area value of the land and the interested persons attains finality in that field. The claimants have a right to claim compensation without prejudice to their rights and contentions by making reference petitions under Section 18 of the Act. From the stage of making of a reference, the matters are transferred from the administrative and executive authorities functioning under the provisions of the Act, for adjudication process to the courts.
11. The Land Acquisition Collector is expected to caution the authorities (beneficiaries for whose benefit the lands are acquired) that they should make the funds available for their disbursement to the rightful claimants. This now is the clear directive stated in Section 50 of the Act.
12. Under the provisions of the Act, a duty is cast upon the authorities to make payment of compensation determined to the rightful claimants expeditiously. The provisions of Section 9 indicate a preparatory step by the State authorities invoking the plea that the Government intends to acquire the lands as well as calling upon the claimants to claim compensation. The Collector would determine the fair market value of the acquired land and direct its payment/apportionment amongst the rightful claimants i.e. interested persons. The right of the persons to claim money is, thus, instantly available to them upon making of the award except in cases where the compensation of the lands of the owners is taken under Section 17(3) of the Act wherein they become entitled to 80% of the estimated compensation before taking possession of the land. The provisions of the Act even provide a safeguard to the citizen and obligation to the State that where estimated compensation cannot be paid because of contingencies stated in Section 31(2), they are required to deposit the same in terms of the Section 31. Under Section 19 while the Collector is making the reference he is required to provide information to the Court in writing, including the amounts which have been paid or deposited and all other amount for damages or compensation, which were tendered in accordance with the provisions of the Act. Section 23(1-A) requires authorities to pay, in addition to the market value as called in terms of Section 23, an amount @12% per annum on the market value for the period commencing from the date of notification issued under Section 4(1) of the Act to the date of the award of the Collector or the date of taking possession of the land. In addition to this, 30% of the market value of the land is payable on account of compulsory nature of acquisition. Section 34 further postulates that the amount of compensation so determined and if not paid or deposited on or before taking possession of the land, the Collector shall pay the amount awarded with interest thereupon @9% per annum from the date of taking of possession until it shall have been so paid or deposited. Further, for the period in excess of one year from the date of taking over possession, interest is payable @15% per annum for the compensation amount determined or part thereof which has not been paid or deposited before the date of such expiry.
13. The scheme of the Land Acquisition Act has an inbuilt check and balances and the legislative intent of providing just and fair market value to the owners of the lands and expeditiously is more than evident under various provisions of the Act. A dual purpose is sought to be achieved by providing even the periods within which the authorities are expected to discharge their duties and ensure disbursement of compensation to the claimants. In default thereof, certain further liabilities accrue against the department. Surely, the Act does not contemplate and rightly so that a claimant entitled to receive compensation is expected or it is even desirable for him to run in various departments of the Govt. or the authorities to receive his compensation, which may not be paid to him for years together. Certain benefits are available to the claimants for delay in acquisition proceedings commencing with under Section 4 and making of the award under Section 11, as the authorities are required to pay interest @12% per annum to the claimants for this period. The claimants are also protected to some extent against compulsive acquisition as well as from the date the possession is taken till entire payment of the awarded compensation is made to the claimants. But the Statute has a lacunae inasmuch as it gives no benefit much less an additional benefit to the claimants, whose lands are required for the entire period commencing from the date of making of the award till taking over of possession by the Department. No liability of any kind comes on the department despite any length of this period i.e. where the judicial pronouncements would abridge the gap and require the authorities to ponder over this aspect of the matter and not leave the claimants unbenefited or remedy less for this period. There are number of cases before the Court where the awards are made and for years compensation is not paid. In some of them, may be the department has some reasonable excuses but in most of them at least the records produced before the Court in those cases do not reflect so. Still in another set of cases, the land is acquired, award is made and possession thereof is not taken for years together and the period varies from 7 years to 30 years. Still in another set of cases the possession is taken and for years compensation is not paid and if it is paid, it is not paid in its entirety. There are large number of writs, which are coming up before the Court every day falling in either of these categories. This aspect has been discussed by the Court in some detail in another case being WP (C) No. 13308-12/2005, which is being disposed of by the judgment of the same date.
14. Inaction and action taken after inordinate delay by various functionaries working under the scheme of the Act results in seriously jeopardizing interest of claimants as well as the public money. In some cases, the claimants are not paid their dues entitling them for higher rate of interest and interest for unnecessarily prolonged period. This may be their gain but it certainly is to the disadvantage of the public exchequer and an avoidable financial loss. On the other hand, the claimants would suffer accrual of any benefits, if their properties are acquired, award is made and the possession is not taken for years together. This further leads to dual dysfunctional results. The very purpose for which the land is acquired may stand frustrated because of long intervening period as a result of unauthorised construction or colonies coming up on the acquired land, and secondly it occasions in generating litigation which again is avoidable. Thus, timely action for completing acquisition proceedings and expeditious determination and disbursement of compensation to the claimants should be the Hallmark of all the functionaries doing public duties under the provision of the Land Acquisition Act.
15. In the case of ABL International Ltd. and Anr. v. Export Credit Guarantee Corporation of India Ltd. and Ors. : (2004)3SCC553 , the Supreme Court held as under:
It is clear that when an instrumentality of the State acts contrary to public good and public interest, unfairly, unjustly and unreasonably, in its contractual, constitutional or statutory obligations, it really acts contrary to the constitutional guarantee found in Article 14 of the Constitution. thereforee, once the State or an instrumentality of the State is a party, it has an obligation in law to act fairly, justly and reasonably to a contract which is the requirement of Article 14 of the Constitution.
Unless the action challenged in the writ petition pertains to the discharge of a public function or public duty by an authority, the courts will not entertain a writ petition which does not involve the performance of the said public function or public duty.
16. State actions causing loss are actionable under public law and this is as a result of innovation to a new tool with the court, which are the protectors of civil liberty of the citizens and would ensure protection against devastating results of State Action. The principles of public accountability and transparency in State action even in the cases of appointment, which essentially must not lack bonafide was enforced by the Supreme Court in the case of Centre for public interest litigation and Anr. v. Union of India and Anr. : AIR2005SC4413 .
17. Adverting to the facts of the present case in the back drop of principle of public or statutory duty and accountability of public officers, we are constrained to say that authorities have not been able to place any justification on record for non payment of the awarded compensation to the petitioners. Non-disclosure of any sufficient reason obviously would hold them responsible for the consequences flowing from the default in discharge of their public and statutory obligations. The Notification under Section 4 was issued on 27th January, 2003 while declaration under Section 6 was issued on 23rd January, 2004 i.e. after a lapse of nearly one year. The award was made by the Collector on 22nd August, 2005 being Award No. 15/2005-06/DC(N-W) after a lapse of nearly 1 year and 8 months. The possession of the land was taken on or before 14th September, 2005 but the compensation of the petitioners have not been paid even till filing of the present writ petition. The petitioners had filed their objections under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act on 14th September, 2005 itself. In other words, the petitioners had filed application for payment of their compensation and their application for further enhancement in accordance with Section 18 of the Act but despite filing of such applications, copies of which have been filed on record, they have not been paid compensation till date. The respondents have not even deposited the said compensation before the Reference Court. There is no justification whatsoever on record as to why the compensation has not been paid for the last more than 8 months. Two important aspects of the matter, which create avoidable liabilities on the public exchequer are, who would be responsible for not acting within a reasonable time and furthermore, who would pay the interest in terms of Section 34 and even under Section 23(1-A). Should this liability be fastened upon the common income-tax payer, who contributes towards the public exchequer or should it be the liability of the officers/officials, who are in charge of the acquisition proceedings and do not deal with the files for months together. Timely disbursement of compensation is the obligation of the authorities and no reason whatsoever either by filing a counter affidavit or by production of record has been shown as to why even after taking possession in September, 2005, the compensation has not been disbursed for 8 months. It is a matter, which should invite attention of all concerned.
The disputes mainly are interdependent or are resulting from inaction of the authorities. Reference in this regard can be made to Civil Writ Petition Nos. 933/88, 1161/88, 6372/06, 4739-43/06, 22895/05, 5663/05, 11206/05, 6609-48/06, 4070-73/06 and 22881/05. The petitioners had submitted the applications complete in all respects with affidavits etc. on 14.6.05 itself but no records have been produced before us to show that the petitioners were called upon to make up in deficiency if at all noticed by the respondents in fact that is not even so stated in the affidavits filed in this Court by the respondents. Once the petitioners had furnished the requisite documents and had submitted their applications there can be no justification whatsoever for delay in disbursement of the awarded compensation to them. Persistent and chronic nature of these problems is amply demonstrated by the fact that in Civil Writ No 1161/88 vide its order dated 5.5.05 the Court had passed directions requiring the respondents to look into various problems relating to acquisition proceedings before the authorities and to prepare guidelines. In Civil Writ No. 5463/99 Deep Jot Singh and Anr. v. Union of India the Court in similar circumstances as of the present case had allowed the writ petition of the petitioners and imposed cost of Rs. 10,000/- to be recovered from the erring officers. Despite specific directions of the Court that the amount of cost which was to be paid at the first instance by the respondents was to be recovered from the salary of the erring officials in accordance with law. Despite a specific direction that the report should be submitted within three months, the respondents have filed no report and it had been left to the imagination whether the direction and orders of the Court have been implemented by the respondents in its true spirit and substance or not.
The petitioners are certainly entitled to interest as possession of the property was taken on 29.7.95 and they were not paid entire compensation under the provisions of the Act as determined by the Collector. They have not been paid a sum of Rs. 85,588.77/- to each of the petitioners even till date. We have no hesitation in expressing our anguish over the conduct of the respondents. Defaults inordinate delay persist despite specific directions and orders of the Court. The legal and statutory right of the claimants to receive awarded compensation within a reasonable time expeditiously, in any case, is being infringed with immunity that too without any plausible Explanationn. The provisions of the Land Acquisition Act provides sufficient opportunity and time to the authorities to collect the funds and get them in place for disbursement to the claimants in terms of the scheme of the Act without any inordinate delay. The authorities are expected to start working out their financial arrangements right from the date the notification under Section 4 is issued but keep the funds absolutely ready for disbursement before issuance of a notice under Section 12(2) of the Act. Compliance to the provisions of Section 12 is not a mere formality but imposes upon the respondents a definite obligation in law. Where the law of acquisition grants vide powers to the acquiring authority there it equally imposes higher obligation for expeditious disbursement of the dues to the claimants. Inordinate, unexplained and unreasonable delays in disbursement infringes legitimate right of the claimants. The Government is obliged to take effective steps for resolving such issues.
Despite number of opportunities, no detailed counter affidavit was filed on behalf of the respondents. Vide order dated 27.10.2005, the court had noticed that despite the directions contained in the order of the court dated 25th August, 2005, the respondent Collector has not so far disbursed the amount of compensation determined by him to the petitioner. He was directed to do the needful within four weeks. What to talk of four weeks, months have passed without any relief to the petitioner. Even the presence of the officers before the court could neither provide a reasonable cause for such inordinate delay nor effective steps were taken to make the payment. The short affidavit filed only states that the possession of the land was taken on 29th July, 2005 after the award was pronounced on 5.5.2005. It is admitted in para 5 of the affidavit filed by Mr. A.K. Singh, ADM (South) that the interest as per the provisions of Section 34 would be payable to the claimants. It is also stated that the DDA had not sent the compensation and the statutory interest has not been sent till date resulting in non-payment to the claimants. This inter-departmental controversy would be hardly of any relevance. They ought to resolve their issues by mutual discussion and they have the legal experts to advise them. It was not necessary for the authorities to pay the amount to the claimants but they could avoid the future liability by depositing the said amounts before the reference court as the claimants have already filed references under Section 18 of the Act. The only record produced during the course of hearing before us was file No. PA/SDM(N)/98/34 which again reflects complete lack of will to complete the acquisition proceedings much less it shows desire to achieve the object of the Act by expeditious disposal. The possession of the acquired land was taken on 13.1.97 and it was decided that possession of the khara number in question would be taken later on. Though the officers claim to have visited the spot for taking possession after 1997 i.e. in 1999 and 2000 but the possession was taken only on 2.5.2006 after the Secretary and others officers were directed to be present in court. We may notice that the possession even on 2.5.2006 was taken without any police aid and help and the possession could be taken peacefully as is evident from the kabza karvahi report dated 2.5.2006. The Land Acquisition Collector claims that he had written various letters right from 4th July, 2005 to 31st October, 2005 but DDA sent no amounts for disbursement to the claimants. The DDA for the first time sent even the determined compensation on 16.11.2005. Interests for this period and the interests payable under Section 34 to the claimants have not been sent till today despite that the payment was received on 16.11.2005 but the same was paid in part to the claimants only on 19.1.2006 as according to the Land Acquisition Collector they received the payment on 20.12.2005. Be that as it may, one thing is evident that the public exchequer has been burdened with the liability of heavy interests because of lack of responsibility, will and apparent negligence on the part of the concerned officers/officials in various wings of the DDA as well as the LAC. The contention of the DDA that the interest under Section 34 is not payable to the claimants is without any merit. Relying upon the judgments of the Supreme Court in Hissar Improvement Trust v. Smt.Rakmani Devi and Anr. : AIR1990SC2033 and Lila Ghosh (Smt.)(Dead) through LR. Tapas Chandra Roy v. State of W.B. : AIR2004SC288 and even on the bare reading of the provisions of Section 34, it is amply clear that in the default of payment or deposit of compensation or or before taking the possession of the land, the Collector shall pay the amount awarded with interest thereon @ 9% per annum from the time of so taking possession until it shall have been so paid or deposited. Of course, the interest increases for the subsequent period.
The above elaborate discussion clearly depicts a situation where the law is entirely tilted in favor of the claimants and against the respondents. It is not only the pious duty of the court to find out the cause of the thing caused but also Boni juiciest causes lithium dirimere. Thus, we allow this writ petition partially with the following directions:
(a) The balance amount of Rs. 81,588.77/- which admittedly is due and payable to the petitioners shall be paid to each of the petitioners within 15 days from the date of pronouncement of this order. The petitioners would also be awarded interest in terms of the award.
(b) The petitioners would be entitled to interest in terms of Section 34 of the Act from 29.7.05, the date on which admittedly the possession of the land was taken till the date of payment of entire dues including the dues stated in Clause (a) afore-indicated.
(c ) There is an obligation on the part of the respondents to make the payment within reasonable time as no specific time has been stipulated under the provisions of the Act. In the present case there is no reason stated in the affidavits for inordinate delay of more than six months in making the payment to the claimants. In our opinion, two months will be the reasonable time for disbursement of the awarded compensation amount or for passing an appropriate order. The period of two months should normally be counted from the date of issuance of notices under Section 12(2) of the Act and /or from the date the possession is taken. In fact, every effort should be made by the authorities to make the payment even prior thereto to avoid payment of interest under Section 34 of the Act or other interest or charges payable, to avoid unnecessary burden on the public exchequer for acquisition of the lands.
In view of above, we further direct that the interest paid particularly under Section 34 of the Act w.e.f 29.10.05 till 19.1.06 should be recovered from the salary of the officials/officers for the inordinate delay in excess of the two months.
The disciplinary authorities would do the needful by following the due process provided under the relevant service rules governing the officials/officers of that department. For this purpose, Secretary, Land and Building, NCT of Delhi, Vice-Chairman, DDA and Commissioner, Land, would act in coordination with each other and submit a report to this Court within six months from the date of pronouncement of this order.
We further direct the above said three officers who are heading the department/authorities involved in the entire land acquisition process to issue proper guidelines in terms of the order of the Court in Civil Writ Petition No. 1161/88 and the observations of the Court made in this writ petition within one month from the date of pronouncement clearly spelling out the entire scheme of acquisition covering all facets to avoid delays in issuance of notifications, taking possession, making of the award and finally disbursement of compensation to the claimants.
The writ petition is allowed in the above terms with Rs. 10,000/- as costs. The authorities would be at liberty to recover these costs from the salary of the erring officers.