— Protection of property rights — Acquisition of land without payment of compensation — Scope — Respondents were deprived of their land without compensation under Land Acquisition Act, 1894 — Respondents filed a suit which was ultimately decreed — Supreme Court observed that the respondents must have spent money and time with regard to a case which should have never seen a court of law, provided the petitioners had abided by the Constitution and the law — Whilst counsel of private parties were accountable to them, and might resort to unnecessary litigation, this was not expected from the petitioners — The Government of Punjab and every employee of it, including those in the office of the Advocate-General ran on public funds, therefore, one expects a much higher standard from them — The government and its servants were there to serve the people — In this case, land was taken without compensating the respondents — Therefore, whilst declining leave and dismissing this petition, Supreme Court directed the Government of Punjab to pay to the owners of the land, requisite compensation, within a period of thirty days from the receipt of this order and in addition also pay to them one million rupees as costs. [2024 SCLR 40 = 2024 SCMR 22]

— The respondents, numbering one hundred and twelve, filed an application for partitioning certain lands under Section 135 of the Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1967, which was opposed by the petitioners, two in number — The matter was resolved by consent before the Member, Board of Revenue, but the petitioners challenged the consent order in a writ petition before the High Court — The High Court upheld the consent order and imposed costs of Rs.50,000/- on the petitioners — However, the costs were neither paid nor recovered, which is a surprising anomaly given the date of the High Court’s order — The petitioners objected to partition on the grounds of adverse effects on their land rights, which the court deemed invalid — The petitioners’ resistance to a simple partition application led to unnecessary litigation spanning almost 14 years, indicating a desire to delay proceedings and thwart the rights of the majority of respondents — The failure of revenue authorities to address the respondents’ application and disregard for court orders suggested influence over local revenue officers, who also neglected to recover the imposed costs — Such disobedience undermined the rule of law — No illegality was found in the High Court’s order, thus leave to appeal was declined, and costs of one million rupees were imposed on the petitioners in addition to the High Court’s costs — The costs were to be deposited with the revenue officer and distributed equally among the respondents — Revenue officers are directed to implement the Board of Revenue’s order — Petition for leave to appeal was dismissed accordingly. [2024 SCLR 28 = 2024 SCMR 154 = 2023 SCP 351]

— Courts should not hesitate in imposing costs, and compensatory costs too when required. [2024 SCLR 25 = 2024 SCMR 142 = 2023 SCP 375]