Ravi S. Dhavan, JJ.:— On this writ petition, regard being had to the circumstances noticed in the order of 22 April 1999, the Court had to order an enquiry through the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) as the record was revealing a prima facie case on the execution of public irrigation projects, where land of agriculturists had been possessed without due process of the law. No proceedings were taken for acquisition of the land. The project was completed, the petitioners complain, by depriving them of their land, but without the compensation. Thus, in so far as facts are concerned, instead of repeating the contents of the order of 22 April, 1999, the Court considers it appropriate that the entire order be reproduced as part of the judgment.

“22.4.1999

Ravi S. Dhavan and V.P Goel, JJ..— The five petitioners, Durga Prasad, Mahadeo, Dilodhar, Ramyagya and Ram Khilawan, all are residents of Paragna Kewai, Tehsil Handia, District Allahabad. The first three petitioners are residents of village Shripur and the next two are residents of village Madhopur—Jagdishpur. In the present writ petition, the following respondents have been arrayed: 1. State of U.P, through District Magistrate, Allahabad, 2. Land Acquisition Officer, Allahabad, 3. Chief Revenue Officer, Allahabad, 4. Executive Engineer, Baghala Nahar Prakhand, Allahabad, 5. Assistant Engineer, Land Compensation, Allahabad, and 6. Assistant Collector, Handia, Allahabad.

The relief sought in the writ petition is that (a) a writ of mandamus be issued directing the respondents to pay compensation, interest and solatium to the petitioners forthwith, (b) a direction to the respondents by a writ of mandamus to award all benefits which flow from such compensation, and (c) such other writ which this Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.

The Court does consider it rather strange that despite time having been granted in this case on which notice was served on 17 September, 1998, as of date, none of the respondents have elected to file a reply to the writ petition by their respective counter affidavits. The matter remained pending and on 22 February, 1999, a Division Bench of the Hon'ble S.R Alam and the Hon'ble R.P Mishra, JJ., granted time to the respondents to file their reply by a counter affidavit when learned Standing Counsel asked for further time to reply to the writ petition. Despite this, the petition remained without a reply. On 8 April, 1999, the registry reported that counter affidavit has not been filed. On 9 April, 1999, the Court indicated to learned Standing Counsel that if the counter affidavit is not being filed, for whatever may be the reason, at least the original record ought to be shown to the Court.

On 16 April, 1999, the Court recorded a statement on behalf of the Standing Counsel that he had instructions to state on behalf of the office of the Special Land Acquisition Officer, the Head Clerk, that possession of the land had not been taken and the question of compensation does not arise. The order of 16 April, 1999 ran thus:

“April 16, 1999

Ravi S. Dhavan and V.P Goel, JJ.— This petition was filed on 12 October, 1998. Despite notice, as of date, none of the respondents have filed a counter affidavit. In the circumstances, the Standing Counsel was asked to procure the original record. Today when the matter was taken up, learned Standing Counsel (Mr. U.K Pandey, Advocate) has stated that he had instructions to state on behalf of the office of the Special Land Acquisition Officer, through his Head Clerk that possession of the land has not been taken and, therefore, the question of compensation does not arise. It is necessary for the Court to record this statement which was given by learned Standing Counsel.

The Court has seen the record. The exercise for payment of compensation appears to be eluding the petitioner. At present, the Court will not place on record what the original record reveals. This will be left for final judgment. Suffice it to say that there has been a lapse of 20 years in presenting the compensation to the petitioner. The original papers which the petitioner has shown to the Court show that the land of the petitioner has been requisitioned for constructing the canal under the U.P Rural Development (Requisition of Land) Act, 1948. The action in taking the land of the petitioner is one of the requisition not acquisition. The petitioner draws the attention of the Court to a circular of the Chief Secretary to all the District Magistrates being conscious of the fact that the land of the agriculturists may have been requisitioned for public purposes and the compensation may not have been paid. The Chief Secretary has expressed concern that these cases are not being settled. The petitioner's case is one such case.

The Court cannot grant any extended time to the respondents for filing a counter affidavit as truly the time for such an exercise is now over, unless permission of the Court is sought to bring in a counter affidavit by any of the respondents. But, the Court is concerned that this matter must not be delayed. The fact of the matter is that the petitioner's land has been requisitioned by the respondents. The issue is of compensation and such is the final relief, also. Let the Court be indicated of the exercise processed for payment of compensation to the petitioner by Tuesday. Further, let the Court be indicated that such of those persons who belong to the same class as the petitioner whose lands have been requisitioned for the same public scheme have been paid compensation or not. The list of such persons be disclosed. The original record is returned to the Standing Counsel, but to be retained.

At these proceedings the District Magistrate, Allahabad is present. The proceedings are adjourned at the request of learned Chief Standing Counsel to Tuesday next, as desired.”

2. In this order, the Court has also indicated that time for filing a counter, truly, is over and, thus, this period cannot be extended, as an indulgence unless formed permission of the Court is sought to bring in a counter affidavit by any of the respondents. No leave of the Court has been sought to file a counter affidavit. The petition remains unreplied. On 20 April, 1999, the Court was being intimated that an exercise for paying compensation has been undertaken and a calculation chart was filed before the Court. It was not on an affidavit. The signatures do not contain a date. On this counsel for the petitioners reacted to say that these very officials had carried out an exercise on compensation earlier and this exercise had a very different rate and, today, the rates appear to have been reduced. Counsel also brought to the notice of the Court the supplementary affidavit which had been filed which submitted that even the media had reported that during the year 1996-1997, an amount of Rs. 3 corers plus had been received and deposited in the account of Superintending Engineer concerned but this compensation has not been disbursed to the petitioners. These submissions and proceedings were recorded by the Court as below:

“20.4.1999

Ravi S. Dhavan and V.P Goel, JJ.:— The proceedings of this case are cause for much concern. The original record, which had been brought to the Court and which the Standing Counsel was to retain, is not available in Court. The contention before the Court is that the department concerned has taken it back. For the benefit of learned Standing Counsel/Chief Standing Counsel, the proceedings of 16 April, 1999 are being reiterated that a writ of certiorari had been issued and it is in pursuance of a writ of certiorari to bring forth the record, the record should have been available. The occasion to seek the record arose as no counter affidavit has been filed by any of the respondents. It is not that the Court has not given any opportunity to the respondents to reply to the writ petition. Even in the order dated 16 April, 1999, it is mentioned that should the respondents feel the need to file a counter affidavit they may, but now by leave of Court, as the time granted has lapsed.

On the other hand learned counsel for the petitioner reiterates that the exercise of granting compensation which has been carried out by the State-respondents refers to the officials as: Assistant Engineer, Land Acquisition, Baghala Nahar Prakhand, Allahabad, Assistant Collector, Handia, Allahabad, Special Land Acquisition Officer, Allahabad, Executive Engineer, Baghala Nahar Prakhand, Allahabad and Chief Revenue Officer, Allahabad.

Today, a fresh exercise has been shown, and the compensation has been calculated again. No reason has been given why this second innings to calculate the compensation and reduce it. This exercise has been signed by following officers: an Assistant Engineer, Land Acquisition, Baghala Nahar Prakhand, Allahabad, Assistant Collector, Handia, Allahabad, Special Land Acquisition Officer, Allahabad, Executive Engineer, Baghala Nahar Prakhand, Allahabad and Chief Revenue Officer, Allahabad.

The compensation as was calculated a year ago was very different and much more than what has been calculated now. Besides this, learned counsel for the petitioner presses on the point that in reference to the petitioner and other persons affected in the context, of the project for which the land had been requisitioned, during the financial years 1996-1997, an amount of Rs. 3.00 crore odd had been received and deposited in the account of Superintending Engineer of the concerned department. No details are being made available to the Court as to what happened to the compensation and why this is not being paid.

As the matter is under hearing, put up tomorrow.

Today, the record is before the Court. The respondents have not filed a counter affidavit. In fact, it would be better to put this as a circumstance that the respondents have chosen not to reply nor have sought leave of the Court to file a counter affidavit even now. The original record shows that between the respondents there seems to be correspondence between them which has been carried over the years, for two decades, as if for processing the compensation. Otherwise, it is an exercise on how not to pay compensation. It is in this regard that the petitioner placed before the Court the concern of the Chief Secretary, Uttar Pradesh, which is appended as Annexure-6 to the writ petition. The general circular which had been issued by the Chief Secretary, Uttar Pradesh, is dated 19 July, 1969. The subject matter is on delayed compensation. The circular of the Chief Secretary is reproduced:

In the matter before the Court, the original record reveals an entirely different story. The Court is obliged to record extracts from the record. As the case is proceeding today, the proceedings are apparently, watched on behalf of each of the respondents through their subordinates which learned Standing Counsel has indicated as Messrs. Mahesh Chandra, Assistant Engineer, Office of the Executive Engineer, Baghala Canal, Varanasi: P.N Tripathi, Sub Divisional Magistrate, Handia; A.K Pathak, Assistant Engineer, Baghala Canal, Allahabad; and Rasheed Ahmad, Clerk from the office of the Land Acquisition Officer/The District Magistrate, Allahabad. This in itself shows that the proceedings are being watched closely by the respondents who have elected not to answer the writ petition.

Be that as it may. The Court has now perused the record. In the original record, there is a controversy and the Board of Revenue has placed the entire responsibility on one particular department for occupying the land of agriculturists without any appropriate proceeding and despite having taken possession of the land of the agriculturists like the petitioners, yet charging LAGAN (Land Revenue). Further, it has been recorded that of the irregular manner in which the land of the agriculturists has been possessed, the least that can be done is that compensation ought to be processed by negotiation with affected agriculturists. This noting have been recorded by the Revenue Officer, the District Magistrate, the Land Acquisition Officer and in addition has been signed by the Clerk and the Head Clerk. This note is reproduced as below:

The fact that land had been possessed, but, irregularly and that compensation had not been processed stands recorded by a note of 10 April, 1996 by the Special Land Acquisition Officer (Irrigation), Allahabad. This note reads:

The petitioner has produced before the Court the original notice requiring the petitioner No. 1 to be present before the Assistant Collector, the Tehsildar in a case on 13 December, 1978. The notice, a perusal of it reveals, has been issued under the Rural Development (Requisition of Land) Act, 1948. In pursuance of the notice there were proceedings on which the petitioner filed objection. The case was numbered as 751: State v. Durga Prasad. Whatever be the proceedings under the Act, aforesaid, and the notice issued to the petitioner, consequentially, the name of the State was entered into the revenue records. The Court mentions this aspect as the original record which has been produced before the Court makes no mention that the land came to be possessed by the State of Uttar Pradesh in pursuance of the U.P Rural Development (Requisition of Land) Act, 1948. On record, which has been produced before the Court, notings are carried on for long years as if no one is aware of how the land came to be possessed by the State. Those who made the notings have, also, recorded that the land has come into possession of the State unauthorisedly and compensation has eluded the agriculturists, and the matter be treated as if land has been acquired under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, and compensation be processed on the same procedure as for acquisition of land.

But, apart from all this, the Court must record the fair conduct of the Chief Standing Counsel, U.P, who has placed the record before the Court in the correct perspective which public justice demands. In fact, he has acted in the interest of justice without taking a brief for any of the respondents, as they elected not to file a counter affidavit.

The Court is not in a position to calculate compensation for granting relief to the petitioners as in its prerogative writ jurisdiction, it will not be appropriate for the Court to examine the quantum of compensation nor suggest what the petitioners ought to receive. This implies that this necessarily will delay justice which the petitioners ought to receive from the State of U.P All that the Court can recommend is that on record there are two charts. One is of a calculation made in the normal course of the administration, a copy of which has been filed by the petitioners, and not controverted. Another chart was shown to the Court by the Standing Counsel as a fresh exercise for the purpose of impressing upon the Court that an exercise is on in 1999. It has not been filed with an affidavit. It mentions the names of officials tut it has not been signed nor does it contain a date, but since it has been filed through the agency of the Standing Counsel, the Court cannot ignore this chart and this chart is reproduced:

3. Proposed compensation for land for construction of Bhadohi-Rajbaba Village Sripur, Tahsil Handia, District Allahabad.

Sl. Name Vill. Pargana Dist. Tehsil Name of Farmer Father's Name Caste Gata No. Rakba Set in Acre Affected Rakba in Acre 1. Sripur Fevai Alld. Handia Durga Pd. Raghunath Brahmin 575 1.71 0.31 2. Sripur Fevai All. Handia Rahmtullah Sadulla Mohemdan 593 0.68 0.18 3. Sripur Fevai All. Handia Balikaran Banshi Kevat 662 0.27 0.10 4. Sripur Fevai All. Handia Balikaran Sahdev Banshi Kevat 664 0.28 0.12 5. Sripur Fevai All. Handia Mahadev Banshi Kevat 665 0.28 0.14 6. Sripur Fevai All. Handia Radhika Prasad Rameshwar Brahmin 667 0.68 0.39 7. Sripur Fevai All. Handia Lal Mohd. Abdul Samad Nanhu Mohemdan 666 1.13 0.51 8. Sripur Fevai All. Handia Ayodhya Khilodhar Dudhai Rupai Kalicharan Harijan 669 0.95 0.05

Quality of Land Rate per Acre Fixed by the District Magistrate Amount payable to farmer Detail Manjha-1 Irrigated 2,50,000.00 77.500.00 Manjha-1 Irrigated Quality of Land Rate per Acre Fixed by the District Magistrate 45000.00 Har-1 Irrigated Quality of Land Rate per Acre Fixed by the District Magistrate 25000.00 Har-1 Irrigated Quality of Land Rate per Acre Fixed by the District Magistrate 30000.00 1/2 Balikaran 15000.00 1/2 Sahdeo 15000.00 30000.00 Har-1 Irrigated Quality of Land Rate per Acre Fixed by the District Magistrate 35000.00 Chachar-1 Unirrgated Quality of Land Rate per Acre Fixed by the District Magistrate 97500.00 Har-2 Irrigated Quality of Land Rate per Acre Fixed by the District Magistrate 127500.00 1/2 Lal Mohd. 63750.00 1/2 Abdul Samad 63500.00 127500.00 Chachar-1 Irrigated Quality of Land Rate per Acre Fixed by the District Magistrate 12500.00 Ayodhya 3125.00 Khilodhar 3125.00 Duhdai 3125.00 Rupai 3125.00 12500.00 Total 4,50,000.00

Sd/- Sd/- Sd/- Sd/- Sd/- Sd/- Illegible Illegible Illegible Illegible Illegible Illegible (Jiledar First) (Asst. Eng.) (Lekhpal) (Revenue Inspector) (Tehsildar) (Ex. Eng.)

What the petitioners have filed along with their pleadings an affidavit is also reproduced:

Irrigation Work, Region Allahabad

Baghla Canal, Division Allahabad

Rate of Land acquired under Bhadohi Rajvaha Scheme.

Sl. No. Gata No. Certified Rakba Rakba in Sq. M Nature of land Circle Rate per S.M Per Bigha Per Hect Value of land Detail 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Village Sripur 1. 575 0.56 2240 MAJHA (SI) 650/- 14,56,000.00 2. 593 0.03 120 MAJHA (SI) 650/- 78,000.00 3. 476 0.88 3530 GODHAN 650/- 22,88,000.00 4. 662 0.10 - HAR (SI) -160000.00 2,60,702.00 53,333.00 5. 664 0.14 HAR (SI) - 560000.00 982456.00 137480.00 6. 665 0.14 HAR (SI) - 560000.00 982456.00 137480.00 7. 667 0.45 1800.0 MAJHA (SI) 550.00 11,70,000.00 8. 666 0.53 - MAJHA (SI) - 75000.00 131579.00 69,737.00 9. 669 0.14 - CHAYAR (SI) 560000.00 982456.00 137480.00 Total 3.00 5524510.00

Sd/- Sd/- Sd/- Sd/- Sd/- Illegible Illegible Illegible Illegible Illegible Asstt. Engineer S.D.M S.L.A.O Executive Eng. Chief Land Compensation Baghala Handia Alld. Officer (SI) Alld. Raghala Canal Division Revenue Officer Canal, Alld. Division Allahabad Allahabad

Irrigation Work, Region Allahabad

Baghla Canal Division, Allahabad.

Rate of land acquired under Bhadohi Rajvaha Scheme

sl. No Gata No. Certified Rakba Rakba in Sq. M Nature of land Circle Rate per S.M Per Bigha Per Hect Value of land Detail 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Village Sripur 15 0.12 480 MAJHA (SI) 350.00 16,8000.00 117 0.03 120.0 MAJHA (SI) 350.00 42, 000.00 175 0.31 1240.0 GAUHAN (SI) 420.00 5,20,800.00 234 0.40 1600.0 MAJHA (SI) 420.00 672000.00 99 0.03 120.0 GAUHAN (SI) 350.00 420000.00 122 0.47 - MAJHA (SI) 7-75000.00 131579.00 61842.00 189 0.51 - GAUHAN (SI) -94000.00 164912.00 84105.00 116 0.27 - MAJHA (SI) -75000.00 131579.00 27632.00 102 0.46 1840.0 GAUHAN (SI) 4200 772800.00 223 0.26 1040.0 GAUHAN (SI) 350.00 364000.00 176 0.41 1040 2 (SI) 420.00 688800.00 245 0.010 40 2(SI) 420.00 16800.00 236 0.51 204.0 GAUHAN (SI) 420.00 856800.00 229 0.79 GAUHAN (SI) -94000.00 164912.00 130280.00 TOTAL 4.52 4447853.00

Sd/- Sd/- Sd/- Sd/- Sd/- Illegible Illegible Illegible Illegible Illegible Asstt. Engineer S.D.M S.L.A.O Executive Eng. Chief Land Compen- Handia Officer (SI) Baghala Canal Revenue sation Baghala Alld. Alld. Division Officer Canal, Alld. Division Allahabad Allahabad

The file notings which have been produced before the Court clearly bear out, as it is recorded that the entire responsibility of delaying the compensation lies on the Superintending Engineer. Nobody appears to take responsibility on what the compensation should be for agriculturists, like the petitioners. Every authority seems to be putting notings that there ought to be negotiations, regard being had to the fact that the payment of compensation has been delayed. No effect worth the name of any negotiation is on record, except notings that there ought to be an exercise.

Then, as the petitioners contend and have placed on record that the media reported that an amount of Rs. 3.16 crores has been received and deposited during the year 1996-1997, but not paid.

The Court is not in a position to grant relief to the petitioners as specifically as the petitioners desire as the compensation even as suggested on record, taking the procedure prescribed under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, has yet to be calculated or negotiated in accordance with law. But the Court does get the impression that there is either callousness or high handedness in officialdom by walking into the land of the agriculturists for long years ago and depriving them of compensation. Noting after noting has been made on official records that the compensation ought to be processed, but there is no concrete step as a finality to pay the compensation. The petitioners or agriculturists, like the petitioners, may yet not see the compensation even in the next century.

In the circumstances, the Court is left with no option but to draw the attention of the Chief Secretary to the State of affairs as has been noticed by the Court in this matter. The Chief Secretary, many years ago, was expressing concern on the subject of delayed compensation, this would be the fittest example for his concern.

As the officials concerned, do not appear to be in any hurry to process compensation for agriculturists whose land was taken away for public purpose, this is not a matter of any private lis. It is a dispute between persons like the petitioners and public authorities, that is, the State. This is a matter in public law. Learned Chief Standing Counsel has been fair enough to indicate that of this project alone, that is to say, the construction of Baghala Canal, six hundred persons have been affected. He would not be in a position to contend, he says, as to how many people have yet to receive compensation.

The Court by this certiorari action certifies the record as one of high handedness of the officials arrayed as respondents, in not delivering the compensation to agriculturists, whose land was taken away for public purpose. In the present case, the project is Gyanpur Canal Scheme. The Baghala Canal is only a part of the project. The scheme mentions 40 itemized projects. Baghala Canal is covered under item No. 4.

There is no way, the Court can find out why this matter of compensation to agriculturists had not been concluded, except to certify the record as one of high handedness of the officials in not processing the compensation. Inquiries on officials indulging in high handedness and certified as such by the Court was a fitting circumstance requiring investigation by the Central Bureau of Investigation (C.B.I).1

Regard being had to these circumstances, the only way this aspect can be inquired into is by rendering inquiries into these matters in the hands of Central Bureau of Investigation to find out (1) How many agriculturists have not been paid compensation in reference to this project?, (2) When it is clear on record that the land of agriculturists had been requisitioned under the U.P Rural Development (Requisition of Land) Act, 1948 why had the officials diverted the attention of the record to land acquisition proceedings and now suggest compensation as if taking out ex-post-facto proceedings for acquisition under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, and (3) All the officials, concerned, who may have delayed or bogged the compensation which was due to the agriculturists whose land had been requisitioned and is now being made out as if it was without acquisition, must be identified.

This report be submitted to this Court by 20 July, 1999.

The Court recommends to the Chief Secretary, U.P, in the interest of justice to provide relief to the petitioners within three months from today. While doing so he may examine the record and see the fact that the compensation chart, filed overnight through the Standing Counsel, without signatures and without an affidavit can at best be labelled as an exercise as if to impress the Court during hearing that compensation, for payment to petitioners, was being calculated. In the opinion of the Court, so that justice to the petitioners is not delayed, the rates as recommended during 1979 or immediately thereafter, by the Committee constituted by the District Magistrate Allahabad, (reference paragraph 10 and 11 and Annexure-7 to the writ petition) may be the subject of negotiation. Suffice it to say that regard being had to the circumstances that the official records to suggest that compensation will be in terms of acquisition proceedings as if it was under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, ex-post-facto. Thus, the petitioners will be entitled to compensation, solatium and interest as mentioned in the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.

To receive the report of Central Bureau of Investigation, list as part heard on 20 July 1999.”

4. Since the order of 22 April, 1999, reproduced as above, the CBI has filed its report dated 15 September, 1999.

5. The CBI has reported that administrative and financial sanction for the project had earlier been accorded vide the Government Order No. 924/78/23.C-4-DARLU/176 dated 4 April, 1976 and No. 931.Saba/79/23/C-4-263-176 dated 28 March, 1979 of the Government of Uttar Pradesh. The construction work on the project started in 1978. The canal project is spread in four districts, that is, Allahabad, Varanasi, Mirzapur and Sant Ravidasnagar (carved out of districts Bhadohi and part Varanasi). The public project at the expense of repetition is the Gyanpur Pump Canal System that is the main canal, distributaries and the minors. This project was cleared by the Central Water Commission and the Planning Commission of India. Thereafter, the Government of Uttar Pradesh allocated the required budget and deputed officers for executing the project. The departments involved were those engaged for digging the canal and the others in arranging for the acquisition of land. The CBI reports that these were the Irrigation Department and the Special Land Acquisition Officers of the districts concerned.

6. The CBI has reported that the authorities of the irrigation department took the matter of awarding compensation to the agriculturists as a low priority work and their main thrust was to dig the canal as soon as possible without taking steps to acquire land legally. It has further been reported by the CBI that on enquiries it has been revealed that in most cases the authorities of the irrigation department dug the Gyanpur Pump Canal without payment of land compensation to the agriculturists. In some cases they prepared the land cases and forwarded them to the Special Land Acquisition Officers and, simultaneously, started digging the canal without completion of the land acquisition proceedings. The CBI further reports that in some instances even after a lapse of 20 years, the land cases have not been prepared for payment of compensation. The Canal-wise list prepared in respect of agricultural land usurped for digging the canal on which the compensation has not been paid, has been given. These details are contained in Annexure ‘A’ to the report. The CBI has also reported that the first violation was made by the officers of the irrigation department who dug the canal without completion of land acquisition proceedings. The CBI has further reported on instances of non-payment of compensation, canal-wise, at para 12 and onwards in its report. The CBI has also given details of the instances where Special Land Acquisition Officers of the districts concerned, returned the record of the land acquisition cases as the Irrigation Department failed to make available funds for payment of compensation. The CBI has also given details sector-wise, of named officers responsible in violating the law, and possessing the land of agriculturists without acquisition proceedings. The CBI has also reported that Senior Officers in the sectors, concerned, are also responsible for not making available the required budget. The CBI has also given details of the officers who were negligent and had not promptly prepared the land cases. These details are contained in paragraphs 23 to 82 of the report.

7. Then the CBI has given facts of the circumstances which have caused the delay in processing the payment, not making available the budget and depriving the agriculturists of the compensation. These details are contained in paragraphs 83, 84, 85 and 86 of the report. The Collector, Allahabad, sought instructions and guidance from the Principal Secretary, Irrigation, by a D.O letter No. DO 283(43)/8-SLAO (Irrigation), dated 7 December, 1998, but no instructions were sent. This, the CBI has mentioned in paragraph 87 of the report.

8. In paragraph 117 of the report, the CBI has summed up the circumstances that the Irrigation Department, started digging the canal without simultaneously preparing the land cases. In a number of instances the land cases were not even prepared and acquisition proceedings were never initiated, even though 20 years have elapsed.

9. Between 1990-1991 for reasons of financial constraints compensation was withheld and the Special Land Acquisition Officers returned the land cases forwarded by the Irrigation Department for want of funds. The CBI reports that enough efforts were not made by higher authorities of the Irrigation department and the Secretariat of the Irrigation Department to put the matter in the right perspective to have the funds released.

10. The CBI also reports that there has been an upward revision of rates and enhancement of amount of compensation by the District Courts in a large number of cases. This further requires additional allotment of budget and this has affected the availability of funds and led to litigation.

11. On record the Court finds that the CBI has only reported as the record stands, and it is not that the State administration is unaware of the state of the records. For instance on 5 May, 1999, the Secretary, Irrigation, Division III, U.P Lucknow, wrote to the District Magistrate, Allahabad, accepting the principle that such of those agriculturists whose land has been acquired by the State for the Gyanpur Pump Canal System Project, compensation should be worked out in accordance with the criteria set in the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, but it should be ensured that it is not more than the rates prescribed under the Act. This letter also records that this could also be the basis for negotiation. So far as a caution was put in the letter that the rates should not be more than the criteria prescribed under the Act, this was a correct recommendation.

12. By the time these instructions travelled to the district headquarters at Allahabad, the rates, in fact had been worked out by the Irrigation Department. This, the CBI has reported at page 46, in paragraph 110. But, the Chief Revenue Officer, Allahabad did not accept the calculation. The amount was reduced as the Chief Revenue Officer did not approve it. The petitioners contend that they have not accepted the cheques, as according to them, the calculation does not even conform to the criteria which the Secretary, Irrigation, Division III, Lucknow, has recommended, under the Act.

13. The petitioners contend, firstly, that there has been no land acquisition proceedings, secondly, the rule of law has been violated and the alleged acquisition is illegal, thirdly, there has been no exercise after they had been dispossessed to offer damages as compensation under the Act, which is the law and fourthly, the half-hearted effort while this case was under hearing is only a hood-winking exercise without any intention to pay. The contention is that, even the CBI has reported, that the only method of calculation is, as provided under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.

14. On the report of the CBI, the Court is of the opinion that these are fiscal matters. Apart from the fact that the Court is concerned that agriculturists have been deprived of their lands, without due process of the law and in violation of the rule of law. In a democracy, a citizen expects that if his property is to be subjected to acquisition for a public project, then the deprivation of the property of a citizen will only be strictly in accordance with the procedure established by law. The CBI reported that land acquisition proceedings in some cases had not even been initiated. In cases where land acquisition proceedings may have been processed, the records were returned because no budget had been sent to the Special Land Acquisition Officers.

15. To deprive citizens of their properties, as in the present cases, without due process of the law, is State high-handedness. The Court cannot take up individual cases which have been discovered by the CBI, where 2650 persons have not been given compensation despite the fact that their land had been walked into and possessed illegally by the State for a public project sanctioned by the Planning Commission of India to be executed by the State of Uttar Pradesh. The question is where have these large amounts of money gone? If moneys are still retained by the State Government, then, why had the consequential payment not been made to the affected people. The CBI has reported on the prima facie state of affairs. The Court is concerned that moneys which have been earmarked for these public projects have been retained and the citizens who are entitled to receive these moneys as compensation against the deprivation of their properties without land acquisition proceedings, have not been paid. This is a matter which needs a probe by the authority whose job it is to probe fiscal and financial matters relating to mishandling and misdealing public finances.

16. One of the basic guarantees which the Constitution of India has given to its citizen is that no person shall be deprived of his property except in accordance with the due process of the law. Life is livelihood and in a democracy it is protected, and to be deprived only according to the procedure established by law. This is the spirit of freedom and the right to enjoy it as guaranteed under Articles 19 and 21. The fact that Article 31, the provision relating to compulsory acquisition of property stood omitted, made no effect on the confidence to hold property. The property may be acquired under the law of land, but in accordance with the procedure. The citizen may not question the law which prescribes the procedure as the fundamental “right to property” stood omitted in 1979. But, the procedures and the action in execution of acquisition by the State would still have to stand the test of Articles 19 and 21. Besides, the RIGHT TO PROPERTY is protected under the Constitution of India, under Part XII, Chapter IV. Chapter IV was inserted by an amendment. It enjoins:

Chapter IV

RIGHT TO PROPERTY

300-A. Persons not to be deprived of property save by authority of law.—No person shall be deprived of his property save by authority of law.

17. But, if the circumstances of this case become the order of the day, a practice and habit of State functionaries to walk into and usurp the properties of defenceless, little people who live by and off their land, then, the experience of the last two decades shows that those who make the laws, may consider the reality to remedy the arbitrariness of State functionaries to usurp the properties of citizens in violation of constitutional protection and guarantee. In Uttar Pradesh it is becoming an official habit. The founding fathers had been reckoned with this. India is, and will and for a long time be, an economy with an agrigarian base. The only manner in which a property may be acquired for a public purpose, is an exercise spelled out by law.

18. The CBI has reported that in some cases there has been no land acquisition proceedings and the only method by which the properties of the agriculturists could have been acquired for the public project, sanctioned by the Central Water Commission was under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The project, that is, the Gyanpur Pump Canal System had received approval of the Planning Commission of India, but 2650 agriculturists have lost their properties and not received compensation because no proceedings for acquisition have begun, land acquisition cases have not been processed and the records of the land acquisition cases were returned by the Special Land Acquisition Officers as funds were not made available. This reflects a bad situation. The CBI reports arbitrariness. In the present context of the case, it is now a matter of record that the rule of law was violated. Walking into citizens' properties is the sort of phenomenon which happens in dictatorships. In theory, this aspect of citizens' being deprived of their properties without due process of law, is an impossible situation in the face of the Constitution of India.

19. The amicus curiae, Mr. Navin Sinha, Advocate, submits that an ex-post-facto land acquisition proceedings, a solution offered by State functionaries ridicules the Constitution of India. It is an official acknowledgment that land-owners and agriculturists were deprived of their property in violation of the law and by abdication of the law. It would indeed be a ridiculous situation if ex-post-facto proceedings were to be formalised with the State Government now announcing its intention to acquire land for a public project, possessed illegally two decades ago. The law is that when the Government is satisfied that a particular land is “needed or is likely to be needed”, a public announcement shall be carried out, and only then, may a citizens' right to property may be qualified to permit the Government to enter that land for survey, dig, bore, to find out whether the land is “adapted for such purpose” of acquisition. There is no such thing known as ex-post-facto sanction of land acquisition proceedings. Only the modalities for making a calculation for payment of compensation to the agriculturists whose land has been possessed by the State can be borrowed to make the best out of a bad situation. And the privacy of land owners preventing State visitation into residences, Court-yards and gardens is respected by law by giving property owners a prior notice. But, in these matters, the law was thrown to the wind.

20. As these matters relate to large amount of public moneys for public projects and according to the CBI, till date there is a huge back-log of decretal amount of about Rs. 775 lacs to be paid by the Irrigation Department (page 32). In view of upward revision of rates of the compensation by the Courts and price escalation they were forced to increase the estimate in the head of land compensation from 1.25 crores to 57.47 crores as in the year 1998 (page 47). The Irrigation Department has made payment of Rs. 2033.62 lacs for land compensation till date. But, the C.B.I reports further Rs. 4018 lacs will be required for making payment of pending land compensation (Page 47). But, in the affidavits which have been filed on behalf of the State, no reflection has been made of land acquisition proceedings. No notifications under the Act has been shown to the Court. In fact, the file notings which were placed before the Court and noticed in the order of 22 April, 1999, refer to initiating proceedings under the U.P Rural Development (Requisition of Land) Act, 1948. The project was not temporary. The CBI reports that this sort of possession of the land can only be done as a consequence of the proceedings under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 only.

21. The Court is concerned on what has happened to the money which came as a budgetary exercise on this public project which had been Cleared by the Central Water Commission and the Planning Commission of India. Are the funds allocated are still available? Why were these funds not sent to the Special Land Acquisition Officers, at least, for the purposes of calculating the compensation? Is it possible that the State of Uttar Pradesh now may not only have funds available? To answer these questions only two options are left for the Court.

22. It is the opinion of the Court that the matter should be thoroughly examined by the Comptroller and Auditor General of India and, thus, the report which has been filed before the Court shall be sent by the Registrar, High Court, in a sealed cover, to the Comptroller, and Auditor General of India for due examination and audit. Needless to say that the matter relating to what ought to be the compensation to the agriculturists mentioned by the CBI will become the subject matter of scrutiny by the Comptroller and Auditor General of India. It is not necessary for the Court to spell out directions for the Comptroller and Auditor General of India, as he is a constitutional authority. The only aspect which will be brought to his attention is that the project had been initiated in the year 1978-1979. If any matter still needs to be probed, beyond the report of the C.B.I, then the Comptroller and Auditor General of India, may cause further investigation to be made by the C.B.I of the officers found responsible and named by the C.B.I in the report, the C.B.I is obliged to bring in and file cases against them.

23. In so far as the petitioners are concerned, the relief for them is spelled out as under:

24. A copy of this order shall be placed before the District Judge, Allahabad. There are no land acquisition proceedings which have been shown by the respondents to the Court. There is no award. The District Judge, in any case, is an authority referred to under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The State respondents, that is, the official concerned of the revenue shall on or before 15 November, 1999, file a statement, in so far as the petitioners are concerned, before the District Judge, Allahabad, along with the money for deposit. The State respondents will file a calculation before the District Judge, in reference to the strict criteria provided for calculating compensation under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. This will mean the value of the land, that is, the market value. The petitioners will have an opportunity to object to the calculations which will be filed by the State respondents. Thereafter, the District Judge, Allahabad, will examine the matter and modulate the compensation in accordance with the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The District Judge, Allahabad, will take into account the other factors for computing compensation as are prescribed under the Act, like solatium, interest, etc. The amount which will be worked out by the District Judge, Allahabad, as these matters have seen long delay, shall be the final amount and he will require the State Government to deposit this amount. When the final compensation is being computed by the District Judge, Allahabad, he will require the balance amount, if any, to be deposited in his Court within thirty days, of its being indicated. If the need so arises, the decision of the District Judge shall be executed as a decree.

25. In so far as other agriculturists are concerned, these are spread out in five districts. The same modalities will be adopted by the District Judges, concerned. The agriculturists have been identified in the CBI report and the State respondents are possessed of sufficient information on lands used, occupied and possessed by the State for the public project, aforesaid. Likewise, the State respondents shall file a calculation chart with respect to these agriculturists before the District Judges, concerned, on or before 1 December, 1999 along with the money as a deposit. Likewise, as indicated (to District Judge, Allahabad), the other concerned District Judges, shall work out the final amount towards compensation and require the State Government to deposit it by indicating the balance, if any, within thirty days. The decision of the District Judges, concerned shall be executed as a decree.

26. The amicus curiae will be entitled to a fee of Rs. 10,000.00, which will be paid by the State respondents within one month from today.

27. The names of the officers who have been referred by the CBI in its report have been edited and deleted under the directions of the Court. The edited report without names of officials was filed by the C.B.I, and brought on record on 14 October, 1999. All parties to the case may have a certified copy of this order. The CBI will be given a copy of this order without payment of charges. The State of U.P may apply for the original report of the C.B.I from the Comptroller and Auditor General of India provided the request is made by the Chief Secretary, Uttar Pradesh. The edited C.B.I report, on record, may be had on application by any party.

28. The petition is allowed with special costs of Rs. 5,000.00 to each of the petitioners.

29. Petition Allowed.