Facts
The Petitioner’s land in Khasra No. 1/422 was acquired via Section 4 and Section 6 notices issued in April and May 2006
Source reference: p. 1-2An award was passed on December 31, 2007. The Petitioner filed objections under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 on February 28, 2008
Source reference: p. 2Despite two previous High Court orders—W.P.(C) 4286/2016 (dated May 20, 2019) and W.P.(C) 12187/2024 (dated September 30, 2024)—directing the LAC to refer and dispose of the Petitioner’s applications under Sections 18 and 28A for enhanced compensation, the LAC failed to comply
Source reference: p. 2-4The Petitioner alleged harassment by an official, Mr. Himanshu Srivastava, who purportedly told the Petitioner to "go and obtain orders from the High Court"
Source reference: p. 5-6Issues
1. Whether the Land Acquisition Collector (LAC) failed to comply with the time-bound directions issued by the High Court in previous writ petitions regarding the Petitioner's compensation applications
Source reference: p. 7 / para. 10-122. Whether the conduct of the concerned official and the LAC office warrants the imposition of costs and strict directions for immediate compliance
Source reference: p. 8 / para. 18-19Law Applied
Section 18 (reference to Court) and Section 28A (re-determination of compensation based on Court awards) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894
Source reference: p. 2-4Article 226 of the Constitution to ensure the implementation of its prior judicial orders and to penalize "unbecoming" conduct of public officials who defy court-mandated timelines
Source reference: p. 5, 8Reasoning
The Court observed that despite the land being acquired nearly 20 years ago, the Petitioner had not received the enhanced compensation reference
Source reference: p. 8The LAC repeatedly issued notices but failed to pass orders, effectively defying the Court's 2019 and 2024 directions
Source reference: p. 7The Court rejected the Respondent's excuse regarding a pending appeal, noting that an LAC cannot unilaterally stay High Court orders based on separate proceedings
Source reference: p. 7The conduct of Mr. Srivastava was deemed a "gruelling process" for the Petitioner and a direct defiance of judicial authority
Source reference: p. 5The Court concluded that the systematic delay and disrespect shown to the Petitioner necessitated financial penalties to be borne personally by the official and the department
Source reference: p. 8Holding
The Court held that the LAC’s defiance was "not condonable"
It directed the LAC to pass orders on the Sections 18 and 28A applications by May 20, 2026
Source reference: p. 8Costs of Rs. 1,00,000 were imposed: Rs. 50,000 to be paid personally by Mr. Himanshu Srivastava and Rs. 50,000 by the LAC office to the Petitioner within two weeks
Source reference: p. 9The petition was disposed of with a compliance report due on July 10, 2026
Source reference: p. 9Original Court PDF
Rajender SharmavsUnion Of India Through Land Acquisition Collector (Lac)
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in