'What Sort Of IAS Officer?' : Supreme Court Issues Contempt Notice To Maharashtra Addl Chief Secretary (Revenue & Forest)

The Bench of Justices BR Gavai and KV Viswanathan was hearing a matter wherein it had directed the State of Maharashtra to provide reasonable compensation to applicants whose land the State had occupied illegally.

After the perusal of the affidavit filed by the State, the Bench today recorded:

“The applicant as well as this Court may not approve the face calculation given by the Collector. However, it is a bounden duty of the State to follow the provisions of law and to arrive at proper calculation.

We do not understand what the State means by following the provision of law and arrival at a proper calculation. The calculation, to say the least, is based on whimsical ideas.”

The Court observed that the the inference that could be drawn from the sentence in the affidavit was that neither the Court nor the applicant follows the provisions of law. When the Court was told that the deponent of this affidavit was Additional Secretary, Justice Gavai remarked “What sort of IAS officer is he?.”

Against this backdrop, the Court prima facie found the said averments in the affidavit to be contemptuous in nature and went on to issue the contempt notice.

Previously, the Supreme Court orally told the State of Maharashtra that while the State has money “to waste” on freebies, there is no money to provide compensation. Notably, the Court also made it clear that in case it is found that there is no application of mind, it will not only direct for the compensation to be paid under the new Act but will also suspend all the freebies schemes rolled out by the State.

Today, the Court remarked in its order that the State is only indulging in delay-dallying tactics.

“It is thus clear that the exercise as assured by the counsel of the State has not been undertaken. He again reiterated his earlier stand of paying the compensation as per the ready reckoner of 1989 and the interest accrued thereon. When the State had sought time for a particular purpose, it was expected that the State should have done the exercise and come with an amount arrived at....we find that the State is only indulging in delay-dallying tactics...”

The Bench added that when a time was sought for a particular purpose, that exercise ought to have been done. It also noted that the “State is not serious in the matter.” Following this, Justice Gavai orally said: “Should we direct stoppage of Ladli Behen scheme today itself? What is this? You are lacking total seriousness in the matter….We granted you longer time because you said that you wanted to complete that exercise. There is no mention even in the affidavit. Taking road for a ride, you are taking that impression.”

The Court was hearing an application filed by a litigant claiming that his predecessors-in-interest purchased a 24-acre land in Pune in the 1950s. The State government occupied that land in 1963. The applicant instituted a suit and won all the way up to the Supreme Court. Subsequently, the decree was sought to be executed, but the State made a statement that the land had been given to a Defence Institute. The Defence Institute, on its part, claimed that it was not a party to the dispute and therefore could not be evicted.

Thereafter, the applicant moved to the Bombay High Court, praying that he would be allotted alternate land. The High Court issued strictures against the state for not allotting alternate land for 10 years. As such, in 2004, an alternate land was finally allotted. Eventually, the Central Empowered Committee informed the applicant that the said land was part of a notified forest area.

On earlier occasions, the Court had sharply rebuked the State of Maharashtra for not coming up with a reasonable amount while also issuing a stern warning that it would order the stoppage of schemes like "ladli behna" and would direct the demolition of the structures built on the illegally acquired land.

“Come with a reasonable figure. Ask your chief secretary to speak to the CM. Otherwise, we will stop all those schemes.,” Justice Gavai sternly said.

Today, the State's counsel took the Bench through the affidavit filed. The same stated that the State has land of 14 hectares and out of the said land 24 acres, 38 guntha can be allotted to the applicant. The said was within the limits of Pune Municipal Corporation. In view of this, the Court left it to the applicants to decide whether they are interested in land or compensation.

Both parties agreed that they would inspect the site on August 30. Further, the applicant will report to the officer of the District collector at 11 am, the Court ordered.  At the fag end of the hearing, the Court indicated that it would pass the order in balance with the public interest