The inadequacies of the archaic Land Acquisition Act and its distorted implementation have become well known due to the recent agitations leading to occasional bloodshed. But the overarching evil of political and bureaucratic corruption is difficult to prove in a court of law since it demands a high degree of evidence, preferably a smoking gun. Judgments that specifically deal with mala fides in land acquisition are a rarity.
One such case, Jaipur Development Authority vs Mahesh Sharma, prompted the Supreme Court last fortnight to preface its judgment with the remark: “A narration of the facts leading to the appeal would indicate how money and land of the government have been squandered away by some of the officials by joining hands with certain private parties. It would also reflect how unscrupulous and adventurous people in connivance with bureaucrats and persons in power have not only sought to give undue advantage of giving compensation for land but also sought to grab valuable lands causing wilful loss to the government exchequer and gain unto themselves.”
The litigation over the right of an idol (read Mahant) to receive compensation for land two times, once after taking it over under the Jagir Act and then under the state land acquisition law, began in 1974 and reached the Supreme Court twice. The facts are too complicated to be summarised. The court, however, indicted the land acquisition officer who bestowed so many boons on the idol and the temple trustee who promoted his self-interest.
“If on the one hand, a government officer of the status of a land acquisition officer, who is entrusted with a public authority while performing a public duty, has sought to make an illegal land acquisition and also making illegal allotment of land, on the other hand it is a trustee and the manager who abused his position and has, following the trust reposed on him, sought to fritter away a property belonging to the idol,” the court lamented and cancelled all the transactions that conferred undeserved benefits on him by the authorities and the high court.
The leading judgment of the court on this point, by some strange coincidence, again involves the Jaipur Development Authority. The court assailed “blatant misuse of public office by the minister for urban development”. It pointed out the danger of conferring “unbridled, dual powers” on a single individual. The government acted through its bureaucrats and individuals who shaped its social, economic and administrative policies. They are accountable for social morality, the judgment said.
Wise words, but the court has to repeat the sentiments too often. Earlier this year, the court remarked that the case, Mahanadi Coalfields vs Mathias Oran, was a “text book example” of how the government and the authorities flouted their “most basic obligation under the law and even the fig leaf of legality was dispensed with”. The Navaratna government company defeated the claim of the Surendragarh farmers for compensation for 23 years and not a paisa was paid till the court intervened. The facts of the case, Essco Fabs Ltd vs State of Haryana decided two years ago also indicated political and “extraneous” considerations.
In one case, an ex-minister wanted to spite certain people by taking over their land for a wholesale market. The state government obliged, but the landowners moved the high court where the politician lost twice. At his behest, the government appealed to the Supreme Court. It protected the landowners, stating the smaller the man the more serious the matter. “No constituency in our poor country can afford Kilkenny cat (sic) politics and personality cult”. (State of Punjab vs Gurdial Singh).
More From This Section
There are many ways to make the landowner run from pillar to post unless he is willing to pay bribes. In one judgment, the Supreme Court explained one method of harassment. First, the collector makes a conservative estimate of the value of the land. The owner is not given the award for a long time. Therefore, he cannot move a civil court for higher compensation. By then, the time limit for challenging the officer’s estimate lapses. The Supreme Court came to the rescue of the landowner in the case, Bhagwan Das vs State of Uttar Pradesh.
Arbitrariness and discrimination are endemic. Correcting one such injustice in the case, Hari Ram vs State of Haryana, the court observed in April this year: “If this court does not correct the wrong action of the government, it may leave citizens with the belief that what counts is right contacts with right persons in the state government and that judicial proceedings are not efficacious.”