New Delhi, Feb 27 (UNI) The Supreme Court on Tuesday closed the contempt of court proceedings against Ghaziabad Development Authority officials who had failed to adequately compensate certain landowners whose land was acquired by the authority in 2004 and said there seems to be no wilful disobedience of the court's orders.
A bench comprising Justice BR Gavai and Justice Sandeep Mehta after finding it plausible that there may have been miscommunications between the GDA and the lawyers who represented the authority in Court, said there was no wilful disobedience of the court's orders by the GDA and disposed of the contempt case.
The court clarified that it had not decided on the validity of the compensation award and that the landowners were still free to challenge the same if required.
Any such challenge should be decided on within six months, the Court added.
The court said the state and its instrumentalities cannot project that they are being gracious in compensating the landowners, adding that the right to property under Article 300-A of the Constitution is still a constitutional right.
"Depriving a citizen of his Constitutional Right to use the land for 20 years and then showing graciousness by paying the compensation and beating drums that the state has been gracious, in our view, is unacceptable. The state is not doing charity by paying compensation to the citizen for the acquisition of land," the Court said.
The case pertains to a contempt case filed by the land owners through Senior Advocate Dama Seshadri Naidu briefed by a team from Vachher against the Ghaziabad Development Authority (GDA) officials who had failed to adequately compensate certain people whose land was acquired by the authority in 2004.
The top court noted that a compensation award was passed in December 2023 only after the issue of contempt notices to the GDA.
Senior Advocates Mukul Rohatgi, Siddharth Luthra, and Ravindra Kumar appeared for the alleged contemnors (officials of the GDA).
Solicitor General Tushar Mehta appeared for the Ghaziabad Development Authority.
The Court commented that the GDA had taken seven long years to conclude that the land acquired was not residential land but agricultural land.
The GDA said that the delay had worked out well for the landowners since they would now get a "handsome amount" as compensation under the 2013 Land Acquisition Act, instead of a lesser amount under the earlier 1956 land acquisition law, but the bench was not impressed. The court said that the argument on behalf of the State or its instrumentalities after holding the land of a citizen for 20 years and then taking a plea that the land owners are getting benefited, is something "unpalatable." UNI SNG AKS SSP