With Parliament sinking in its own well, we have to hold on precariously to several antiquated laws like the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. A Bill to replace the colonial law has been mired for years in politics and sophistry. The outdated provisions are more often misused than used for public purpose. The latest judgment of the Supreme Court on this law is a case in point (Patasi Devi vs State of Haryana).
The Haryana government acquired land in Rohtak district for the development of a residential colony by its own statutory body. A woman who had a small piece of land and built her house there lost it in the process of acquisition. She challenged it in the Punjab and Haryana High Court. It dismissed her petition on the technical ground that the petition was filed after the passing of the award. On appeal, the Supreme Court not only found fault with the high court for not going into the merits of her case, but also blamed the government that acted to benefit a private developer.
Going through the records, the Supreme Court stated that the acquisition of land was “vitiated due to colourable exercise of the power of the state government. No doubt, the notifications recite that the land was acquired for a public purpose, but the real object of the acquisition was to benefit a coloniser.”
The land of Patasi Devi was surrounded by the land of the firm that was building a “Sun City”. The government had earlier acquired the surrounding land and transferred it to this firm. “This showed,” the judgment said, “that in the guise of acquiring land for a public purpose, the state government had acquired land for being handed over to the private coloniser. In other words, the state government had misused the provisions of Land Acquisition Act for making land available to a private developer.”
Moreover, the court held the government “guilty of practising discrimination” in the acquisition process. On top of it, one officer “used white fluid to score out something in the record”. By doing so, the officer has tried to hide the truth from the Supreme Court, the judges said.
This is not the first time the Supreme Court has lamented the sleaze that pervades most land acquisition proceedings. Just a few examples will do. Two years ago, the judgment in the case, Jaipur Development Authority vs Mahesh Sharma, said: “A narration of the facts leading to the appeal would indicate how money and land of the government have been squandered away by some officials by joining hands with certain private parties.”
Another case of the same year involving a Navaratna government company was called a “text book example” of how the government and its authorities flouted their “most basic obligation under the law and even the fig leaf of legality was dispensed with.” (Mahanadi Coalfields vs Mathias Oran). The government company defeated the claim of the Surendragarh farmers for compensation for 23 years and not a paisa was paid till the court intervened.
Among the most atrocious cases was one in which an ex-minister wanted to spite certain people by taking over their land to build a wholesale market (State of Punjab vs Gurdial Singh). Though he lost his case repeatedly in the courts below, he persuaded the government to move an appeal in the Supreme Court. It protected the land owner, observing that smaller the man, the more serious the matter. “No constituency in our poor country can afford cat politics and personality cult,” the judgment said.
In the judgment, Hari Ram vs State of Haryana, the Supreme Court remarked: “If this court does not correct the wrong action of the government, it may leave the citizens with the belief that what counts is right contacts with the right persons in the state government and that judicial proceedings are not efficacious.”
Here are some tips, taken from a judgment, for officials and politicians to make land owners run from pillar to post and exhaust their money and energy. First, make the collector estimate the value of the land conservatively. Keep the award pending for a long time, so that the land owner cannot move a civil court for higher compensation. By that time, the period for challenging the official estimate lapses. This is only one method of harassment explained in the judgment, Bhagwan Das vs State of UP). A negative reading of such judgments will provide more methods to defeat the claim of land owners.
The ambiguity in the law is bad enough; casual judgments of the lower courts without going into the merits are worse. Every one cannot approach the Supreme Court and take another chance. Our law makers have almost forgotten the proposed land acquisition Bill, with the tsunami of scams and the FDI fireworks dazzling the eyes. Thus, the land acquired will often smell blood.
