HC raps govt for ‘dictatorial attitude’, slaps Rs 6 lakh costs

Saurabh Malik

Tribune News Service

Chandigarh, February 19

Rapping the state government for its “highly dictatorial attitude”, the Punjab and Haryana High Court has slapped special costs of Rs 6 lakh for discouraging it and its offices from indulging in unwanted litigation and draining the state exchequer.

In its judgment, the High Court also ordered that half of the amount would be recovered from the law officers who expressed their opinion and prodded the state to file appeal in the matter.

The admonition and the directions by Justice Fateh Deep Singh came in a case where a metalled road was carved through a chunk of land without either acquiring it, or paying compensation to the owners.

Justice Fateh Deep Singh asserted that the cost would initially be paid by the state in equal shares to all plaintiff-landowners. Thereafter, 50 per cent would be recovered from the officials responsible from the department concerned.

The Bench was hearing “regular second appeal” filed by the state and other appellants against plaintiff-landowners Paramjit Singh and other respondents. The plaintiffs had filed a suit, which was decreed in their favour by Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Jalalabad (West). The findings were, subsequently, upheld by the first appellate court of Fazilka district judge.

Justice Fateh Deep Singh asserted: “The case is in itself reflective of the apathy of the persons responsible for defending this case on behalf of the state. Rather the conduct of these officials, be it the defendant/department or the legal cell responsible for conduct of the case on behalf of the government, is more of deliberate rather than inadvertent, culpable one.”

He asserted that it was clearly held that the land was in the ownership of the plaintiffs. “The courts in their anguish remarked in the impugned findings that recalcitrant attitude of the officials of the defendants rather indicate that none of them wanted to take responsibility as if they knew that without acquiring the private property, they have constructed a road through it.”

Dismissing the appeal in limine or at the threshold, Justice Fateh Deep Singh added it could be deciphered, and was even fairly conceded by the state counsel, that there was nothing documentarily or in evidence that the appellant-state had any right over the land measuring approximately 8-10 marlas.