HC raps state for Rs 70-crore excess relief to landowners

Saurabh Malik

Tribune News Service

Chandigarh, July 21

Rapping the State of Haryana in a case involving excess payment of Rs 70 crore as compensation to landowners some three years ago, the Punjab and Haryana High Court has held that action was not initiated against the erring officials.

Asserting that Rs 50 crore was still to be recovered, Justice Rajesh Bindal and Justice Amit Rawal added action for excess amount recovery was also not taken, even though officials of the department concerned were in the knowledge of it. Critically commenting on the way the cases before a Civil Court were dealt with, the Bench admonished a government pleader and the Land Acquisition Collector’s office.

The bizarre case involving excess payment for land acquisition had surfaced in the High Court more than a year ago. Taking cognizance of the allegation that the recovery of not even a “singly penny” was made from some of the landowners, the High Court had sought details of the excess amount paid, recovery made and the names of the Collector and other officials involved in the calculations.

The directions came on a petition filed by Harmala Kaur and her sister. They were issued notice to deposit the excess amount. Their counsel Anand Chhibbar contented that the petitioners were fair enough to deposit the amount. But the amount paid to a number of other landowners in excess was about Rs 100 crore.

The Bench asserted that positive result was not achieved for the last more than one year, as the matter was being dealt with like a shuttlecock between different departments. Rather, one department was levelling allegations against the other; and requisite information was not being provided.

Referring to the cases before the Civil Court, the Bench added that some orders suggested no one appeared on behalf of the Panchkula Land Acquisition Collector, the office which made the excess payment. It was directed to be proceeded against ex-parte, as none appeared despite service of summons.

Calling for details of action against the government pleader, the Bench observed that he did not oppose the prayer for interim stay. “He got his no objection recorded that status quo be maintained in the suit....”

The Bench also noticed that show-cause notices had been issued to the officers/officials posted when excess amount was paid. Referring to four persons initially found to be involved, the Bench observed that interim stay was granted by the High Court after then Land Acquisition Officer MS Sangwan sought anticipatory bail. “The officer has already been compulsorily retired because of his involvement in other cases. However, the involvement of the officer in other cases was never brought to the notice of the Court during the pendency of his anticipatory bail application.”