Expressing dissatisfaction with the delay in completing land acquisition proceedings, the Supreme Court on Monday granted a development authority six months to conclude the acquisition process while cautioning that any further delay could result in costs being recovered from the erring officials.
A Bench of Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V Mohana was hearing matters concerning land acquisition. Counsel for the authority submitted that acquisition proceedings had been completed in one case, while in another, only the identification of the land remained.
Explaining the delay, counsel stated that parts of the acquired land had already been developed under residential schemes, making identification of the original khasra numbers difficult. The Bench, however, was unimpressed with the explanation. Recalling the extensive exercise undertaken while framing earlier directions in the matter, CJI Surya Kant remarked:
“
“At least I would still recollect, after we drafted our judgments it took me at least one month to simplify the direction… If I should give a direction, then the consequence will be like this, so I have to exempt this. That’s why I want so many provisions to be exempted. A quite comprehensive picture of the statute was kept in view and, despite such a simplified procedure put up before us, the only difficulty was identification?”
Counsel reiterated that after development, the original khasra boundaries had disappeared, making identification a cumbersome exercise.
Recording that it was “not satisfied with the explanation” offered by the authority and that the delay “apparently seems to be a case of gross negligence” on the part of the concerned officers, the Bench nevertheless granted six months’ time to complete the acquisition proceedings, considering the larger public interest and the pendency of development projects. The court questioned he authority’s inability to identify land despite exercising the State’s power of eminent domain.
The Court warned that if the process was not completed within the stipulated period, the consequences would follow in terms of its earlier orders, including possible recovery of costs from the responsible officers.
Counsel appearing for one of the landowners requested that the Court specifically direct payment of compensation, pointing out that while the award had been passed, the amount had not yet reached the claimant’s account. Taking note of the grievance, the Bench directed that compensation determined under the award be disbursed to the concerned landowner within four weeks.