HYDERABAD, Jan 3: Hundreds of Khatedars are facing financial crisis due to non-payment of compensation as land acquisition charges by the Sindh government which has to ensure release of around Rs200 million to the provincial highways department for acquiring lands of different khatedars in various parts of Sindh since 1988.

Inquiries by Dawn revealed that around 318 cases of khatedars were pending with the provincial highways department for final payment of compensation under the Land Acquisition Act (LAA) 1894 since 1988 to date.

However, the payment is being delayed on various counts. It was learnt that Sindh government in its meeting of the Provincial Development Working Party (PDWP) in February this year had approved an amount of over Rs81 million alone against Rs200.362 million, out of which Rs7.5 million are yet to be released during the current fiscal.

The government, initially planned to release only Rs5 million.

Since the khatedars, whose hundreds of acres of land had been obtained by the provincial highways department on the basis of LAA 1894 continue to run from pillar to post to seek compensations but in vain, they are forced to move different judicial forums.

The highways and communication department prepared project cost (PC-I) of over Rs81 million against the actual outstanding dues of over Rs200 by deducting additional compensation of 15 per cent per annum under section 28-A and six per cent simple interest per annum under section 34 to claimants following a legal opinion, given by the Sindh Law Department to highways and communication department, saying that the Land Acquisition Officer (LAO) was not competent to award these two additional compensation to claimants.

It was, however, learnt that now new lists of affected khatedars are being prepared in the light of an order, passed by a division bench of Sindh High Court, Hyderabad circuit, dated Sept 29, 2004 and Oct 1, 2004 observing that “any directive or any letter of law secretary against language of statute is not binding”. For acquisition of land in any case the land is either acquired by the concerned agency/department through negotiation with khatedars or revenue department resorts to LAA 1894.

If the central or the provincial government, local body institution or company needs some land for public purpose they have to request to district officer (revenue) for initiation of proceedings under the Act.

On the other hand, when the concerned department failed to release funds, LAO concerned faces prosecution/contempt of court proceedings because in various cases the amount is not released despite the directive of the court.

The LAOs as well as provincial secretaries are found arguing that summary for payment of land compensation is pending with the finance department.

The khatedars have to go through a cumbersome procedure for payment of land compensation under 1894 Act as requirements of different provisions like section 4, 5-A, 6, 11, 23, 23(1), 23(2), 28-A and 34 are to be met first.

They have to face insurmountable difficulties before award under section 11 is finally passed by the LAO concerned.

Even then in most of cases they failed to receive their compensation money. Only those approaching high courts by bearing additional litigation expenses succeed to seek quick disposal of their cases with land acquiring agency provided the high court passed strict directives.

After being approached by the concerned agency/department, the district officer (revenue) expressed intention under section 4 of LAA 1894 to acquire land when the concerned khatedar(s) refused to sell his land by way of negotiations.

It followed other proceedings which enabled the revenue officer to visit the site/land for purpose of measurement, soil testing, market value, etc.

Subsequently the concerned revenue officer submits a report before the EDO revenue concerned under section 5-A of the Act regarding quality of land, its location, area to be acquired with its tentative market value. Thereafter, the EDO issues a notification under section 6 after the land acquiring is informed by revenue department for depositing payment of land compensation in the account of district officer (revenue).

Ultimately the land compensation award is passed under section 11 which is supported by sections 23(2), 28(A) and 34.

Section 23(2) pertains to 15 per cent compulsory acquisition charges, section 28(A) relates one per cent per annum additional compensation and section 34 deals with payment of six per cent simple interest (applicable in Sindh only) from date of possession of land till the amount is paid. Payment under these sections are mandatory.

The Sindh government’s law department had differed with payment of this additional compensation with the result that LAO had stopped payment of compensation coupled with these additional monetary benefits, forcing khatedars to approach high courts.

Countless cases are moved to various benches of Sindh High Court and at principal seat seeking payment of land compensation. The high court had been strict in issuing directives to concerned department for ensuring payments to khatedars. The high court, in various cases, directed the Sindh finance department to expedite release of payment to khatedars.

In one such case in September 2004 a division bench of Sindh High Court, Hyderabad circuit, comprising Mr Justice Atta ur Rehman and Mr Justice Amir Hani Muslim passed a detailed order, expressing concern that delay in making due payments of compensation and calling upon acquiring agency for avoiding this practice in order to save public exchequer on the one hand and agony of claimants litigating for their due shares on the other.

It observed that inordinate delay in disbursement of compensation for one or other reason exposed government to pay colossal amount to claimants which continue to multiply in terms of interest provided under sections 23(2), 28-A and 34 of Land Acquisition Act (LAA) 1894.

The bench noted, “amount of solitium is mandatory and can not be withheld by government and delay in its payment has exposed Sindh government to huge financial losses as such amounts continue to multiply till they are finally paid”.

It directed the Chief Secretary Sindh to issue appropriate directives to LAOs to include solitium to save government from huge financial losses.

The same bench in another identical matter while dealing with issue of opinion of law secretary regarding payment of solitium, had observed that “any directive or any letter of law secretary Sindh against language of statute is not binding and the acquiring agency of government has authority in law to refuse benefit of section 23(2), 28(a) and 34 of LAA.

Any letter and or opinion of the law department cannot override the language of section 23(2), 28(a) and 34 of LAA. The letter and or opinion of the law department would not bind the LAO to ignore payment of solitium in terms of mandatory sections of 23(2), 28(a) and 34 of LAA”.