New Delhi The Supreme Court on Wednesday hauled up the Maharashtra government for filing an affidavit that seemed to suggest that the top court does not follow the provisions of law, and issued a notice of contempt of court to an IAS officer serving as an additional chief secretary in the state government.
The top court issued a notice of contempt of court to an IAS officer serving as an additional chief secretary in the state government. (HT Archive)
“We prima facie find such averments to be contemptuous in nature,” a bench headed by justice BR Gavai said after going through an affidavit filed by Rajesh Kumar, additional chief secretary in the revenue and forest department, in a case where the state was directed to compensate a landowner in Pune for illegally encroaching upon his land and allotting him an alternative plot on forest land.
Kumar, in his affidavit, said that the state was willing to compensate the landowner a sum of ₹48.65 crore and in the alternate was willing to provide land in Pune measuring over 24 acres. This offer was better than the earlier proposal by the state on August 14 to provide monetary compensation of over ₹37 crore to the affected person.
“The applicant as well as the court may not approve the fresh calculation made by the Collector, Pune but it is the bounden duty of the state to follow the provisions of law and to arrive at a proper calculation,” the affidavit added.
Finding this submission not in good taste, the bench, also comprising justices PK Mishra and KV Viswanathan said, “The inference that could be drawn is that this court and the applicant (landowner) does not follow the provisions of law. He is an additional chief secretary. What sort of an officer is he? The calculation, to say the least, is based on whimsical calculation.”
Posting the matter for September 9, the court added: “We direct Rajesh Kumar to remain personally present in this court on the next date and show cause why action for committing contempt against this court be not initiated against him.”
The court pulled up advocate Nishant Katneshwarkar, appearing for the state along with advocate Aaditya Aniruddha Pande, who filed the affidavit as the standing counsel for Maharashtra, for their oversight in clearing the affidavit. “You have acted as a postman of your client. Your officer will give you anything and you will file anything. It was your duty to see if this should be filed.”
The court did not appreciate the conduct of the state for calculating a “paltry” compensation as per the ready reckoner for land rates prevailing in 1989 after it was informed by senior advocates Dhruv Mehta and Yash Deoraj, appearing for the landowner, that the present market value of the land was ₹250 crore. Even as per the 2022 ready reckoner of land value, the land belonging to the petitioner at village Pashan in Pune would fetch at least ₹125 crore.
“You are not being serious in this matter. On your statement that the matter is being considered at the highest level, we adjourned the matter on August 14. You are lacking total seriousness in the matter. You sought time for a purpose that you do not do. You are taking this court for a ride,” the bench remarked.
Katneshwarkar told the court that the alternative land being offered to the petitioner has good commercial value. He proposed that the petitioner inspect the land in question along with state officers, and decide whether to take the state’s offer which is reasonable.
But the bench told the state, “We are talking about a land where the state is in illegal possession. Don’t tell us what is reasonable. It is like you take somebody’s land in Lutyens Zone and allot him alternate land in Meerut. This is the reasonableness of the state.”
Mehta, who appeared for the petitioner, said he will take instructions from his client and decide whether to take the alternative plot after conducting a joint inspection at the site on August 30.
The bench was hearing a petition filed by Housabai Haribhau Bhairat, whose predecessor –– the title over the land was held by Housabai’s family –– won a decree of a land measuring over 24 acres in village Pashan in Pune, that was upheld in his favour by the top court in 1985.
The land was illegally taken away by the state in 1963 and subsequently allotted to the Centre to set up the Armament Research Development Establishment Institute (ARDEI), a unit under the Union defence ministry.
The petitioner fought a legal battle, and the Supreme Court ultimately decided the case in his favour in 1985. Subsequently, the state agreed to grant him alternative land. In 2004, he was allotted land at village Kondhwa Khurd but this was found to be in reserved forest on which no development was possible.
As the alternative land was a reserved forest, the matter came before the top court bench hearing the TN Godavarman case relating to protection of forests and wildlife. On July 23, the court expressed its angst over the long wait for justice that the petitioner had to suffer as two generations of the family had died without being able to reap the benefits of the decree of the top court.
Images are for reference only.Images and contents gathered automatic from google or 3rd party sources.All rights on the images and contents are with their legal original owners.
Comments are closed, but trackbacks and pingbacks are open.