Punjab and Haryana High Court refuses to interfere with order on Rs 6L costs in land case

Saurabh Malik

Tribune News Service

Chandigarh, September 2

More than a year after the Punjab and Haryana High Court rapped the state of Punjab for “making all-out efforts to ensure that citizens were robbed of their rights to life, liberty and property” before imposing Rs 6 lakh as exceptional costs, the Bench has refused to interfere with the order. Heavy cost imposed by the court was no ground to seek review of its earlier findings, the Bench ruled.

The case pertains to the carving out of a metalled road through a chunk of land without acquiring it in accordance with the law or paying compensation. The plaintiff-landowners filed a suit, which was decreed by Civil Judge (Senior Division), Jalalabad (West). The findings were upheld by the first appellate court, the Fazilka District Judge.

‘Law violated’

• The case pertains to the carving out of a metalled road through a chunk of land without acquiring it in accordance with the law
• The plaintiff-landowners filed a suit, which was decreed by Jalalabad judge. The findings were upheld by the Fazilka District Judge

Taking up the matter in February last year, Justice Fateh Deep Singh asserted it was fairly conceded there was nothing to suggest the appellant-state had right over approximately 8-10 marlas.

Justice Fateh Deep Singh added: “This is not the first time this court has come across such a peculiar situation where the state, which is supposed to be the repository of the law and order and coming to the aid of its citizens protecting their rights to life, liberty and property, has made all out efforts to ensure that they are robbed of the same.”

Before parting with the order, Justice Fateh Deep Singh added imposition of Rs 6 lakh special cost was necessary to ensure the state and its offices were discouraged from going into “such unwanted litigation” and wasting the exchequer.

The Bench added the state would initially pay the amount in equal shares to all the plaintiff-landowners. Thereafter, 50 per cent of the cost would be recovered from the officials responsible from the defendant department. The remaining would be recovered from the law officers who had expressed opinion and prodded the state to come up with the appeal.

Dismissing the review petition, Justice Fateh Deep Singh said the state, rather than challenging the court findings before a superior court, had filed the review application after almost a year. But the counsel could not convince the court how there was miscarriage of justice, discovery of new facts or bona fide and legally condonable reasons.