By Rajesh Pandey
The Allahabad High Court has delivered a stern message to the Uttar Pradesh government, holding that administrative confusion or inter-departmental buck-passing cannot be used as an excuse to defy judicial orders.
In a significant ruling, the court has made it clear that in cases of non-compliance arising from such confusion, the highest officer of the State government will be held personally liable for contempt of court.
Justice Salil Kumar Rai ruled that the Chief Secretary, Government of Uttar Pradesh, would be answerable in contempt proceedings relating to matters under both the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013.
“The internal distribution of work among departments of the State government cannot be taken as a pretext for not implementing the orders of this Court.
It is the bounden duty of the State government to ensure complete and faithful compliance,” the court observed.
Justice Rai added that if non-compliance occurs due to confusion over which department or officer is responsible, “the highest officer of the State shall be responsible and liable in contempt.”
Background of the case
The observations were made while hearing a contempt petition filed by Vinay Kumar Singh, whose land had been acquired as far back as 1977.
Although compensation awards were passed in 1982 and 1984, no payment was ever made. Singh continued to claim possession of the land.
After the enforcement of the 2013 Act, the compensation amount was deposited in the government treasury.
However, Singh refused to accept it, contending that the acquisition itself had lapsed under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act due to non-payment of compensation within the stipulated time.
Relying on the Supreme Court judgment in Pune Municipal Corporation v. Harakchand Misirimal Solanki, the petitioner argued that mere deposit of compensation in the treasury did not amount to valid payment and that the acquisition proceedings had automatically lapsed.
He accordingly sought restoration of the land.
When the authorities failed to act, Singh approached the High Court through a writ petition.
The writ court ruled in his favour, holding that the acquisition had indeed lapsed, as the deposit of compensation was not made in accordance with the law.
Despite this clear judicial direction, the land was not returned to the petitioner.
Willful disobedience found
This led Singh to file a contempt application. Although time was granted to government officers to comply with the court’s order, no action followed, prompting a second contempt petition.
During this period, the land—initially acquired by the Irrigation Department—was transferred to the Urban Development Department.
Consequently, the Principal Secretary of the Urban Development Department was impleaded in the contempt proceedings. Even after assurances were given to the court, compliance remained elusive.
Instead, the State authorities sought refuge behind a later Supreme Court ruling in Indore Development Authority v. Manoharlal, which held that acquisition proceedings would not lapse merely due to non-deposit of compensation or deposit in the treasury.
Rejecting this defence, Justice Rai held that the State had willfully disobeyed the writ court’s order. In sharply worded remarks, he observed: The non-compliance by the opposite parties is not bona fide.
It is intentional, conscious, calculated and a deliberate act with full knowledge of the consequences.
The conduct clearly shows an intention to deprive the petitioner of the fruits of his success in litigation against the State.”
The court further noted that “every trick in the book” had been employed by the State respondents to obstruct implementation of the court’s directions, thereby squarely making out a case of willful disobedience.
Chief Secretary put on notice.e
While observing that the Chief Secretary is the highest authority in matters relating to land acquisition, the court stopped short of immediately framing contempt charges against him.
Instead, it granted a final opportunity of one month to ensure compliance with the writ court’s order.
The High Court warned that if compliance is not achieved within this period, the Chief Secretary would be required to remain personally present before the court on the next date, whecontempt chargespt may be formally framed.
By its order dated November 28, the court directed that the matter be listed next on January 5, 2026, making it clear that the State government’s patience window is rapidly closing.
The ruling is being seen as a strong assertion of judicial authority, underscoring that governance cannot hide behind bureaucratic opacity when it comes to obeying court orders.
#AllahabadHighCourt #ContemptOfCourt #ChiefSecretaryUP #LandAcquisition #RuleOfLaw #JudicialAccountability #UttarPradesh #IndianJudiciary
