Disposed

Smt. Shakuntala Devi v. State of Chhattisgarh

Chhattisgarh HC15 Jan 2019WPC/107/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Chhattisgarh disposed of a writ petition regarding land acquisition compensation. The court directed the petitioner to seek fresh notification on multiplier factors from the State Government as per separate division bench judgment, considering equal treatment issues.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner directed to move representation to concerned Collector within 4 weeks for consideration after fresh notification.

Smt. Shakuntala Devi Vs State of Chhattisgarh — Land Acquisition | Chhattisgarh HC (2019)

¶1

¶2

NAFR

¶3

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

¶4

WPC No. 107 of 2019

¶5

Smt. Shakuntala Devi W/o Shri R. S. Mehra Aged About 50 Years R/o Near Naya Pani Tank, Om Amrita Bhawan, Shanti Nagar Bilaspur Chhattisgarh., District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh

¶6

---- Petitioner

¶7

Versus

¶8

State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of Water Resources, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, New Raipur District - Raipur Chhattisgarh

¶9

The Collector Bilaspur, District - Bilaspur Chhattisgarh

¶10

The Sub Divisional OfÏcer (Revenue) / Land Acquisition OfÏcer Kota, District - Bilaspur Chhattisgarh

¶11

The Executive Engineer Water Resources Division Bilaspur Chhattisgarh

¶12

Isak Mohammad S/o Late Jor Mohammad Aged About 56 Years R/o Village Kamitar, Police Station Kota, Tahsil Takhatpur, District - Bilaspur Chhattisgar h

¶13

---- Respondent

¶14

For Petitioner Mr. Vipin Tiwari, Advocate For Respondent /State Mr. Vikram Dixit, Government Advocate

¶15

Order On Board By

¶16

Hon'ble Mr. Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra

¶17

15/1/2019

¶18

Heard.

¶19

Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner's land has been acquired for Arpa Bhaisajhar Bairaj Project, however, while assessing compensation, multiplier of 1

¶20

¶21

has been used, whereas, the Division Bench of this Court in WPC No.1649 of 2017 ( Smt. Anita Agrawal Vs. State of Chhattisgarh and others) and other connected petitions, has has set-aside the Notification dated 4.12.2014, applying multiplier factor of 1 with direction to the State Government to issue fresh Notification indicating the multiplier factors in terms of the guidelines laid down in the statute and the judgment of the Division Bench. Learned counsel would also submit that a similarly placed affected person, respondent No.5-Isak Mohammad has been provided rehabilitation subvention but the same has not been offered to the petitioner.

¶22

The petitioner has further claimed a direction to the respondents to provide employment to one of her family members, however, for the present, she is not pressing the said relief, which may be permitted to be raised subsequently.

¶23

The petitioner is permitted to do so.

¶24

In Smt. Anita Agrawal (supra ), the following has been held by the Division Bench in para 10, 11 & 12 :

¶25

“10. Further, the question is not about the power of the State Government to issue such notification, the question is the manner in which such power has been exercised which can also be levelled as mindless exercise of power since by restricting the multiplier of factor to 1.00, the State is obviously trying to treat all land owners as one. This will deny to the poor land owners of the remote villagers, fair compensation and rehabilitation, which is the primary object behind the new Land Acquisition Act of 2013.

¶26

¶27

Drawing analogy from the view taken by the Division Bench of Bombay High Court, which we have quoted with due approval, Court is left with no option but to strike down the notification dated 04.12.2014 contained in Annexure P/1. A direction is issued that keeping in mind the legal position which emerges, the State Government will issue a fresh notification indicating the multiplier factors, in terms of the guidelines laid down in the statute and the judgment.

¶28

12.It goes without saying that all awards and compensations in relation to not only these Petitioners but all such persons whose lands have been acquired and a multiplier of 1.00 has been used for calculating the compensation, the same will be required to be revised and revisited in light of the new notification, which is required to be notified by the State Government, on priority.”

¶29

In view of the above, the present writ petition is disposed of with direction that the petitioner shall move a representation before the concerned Collector (Land Acquisition)-respondent No.2 within a period of 4 weeks from today. Thereafter, the said Collector shall decide the representation within 10 weeks from the date of the State Government's fresh Notification in terms of the directions issued by the Division Bench.

¶30

The writ petition stands disposed of.

¶31

(Prashant Kumar Mishra)

¶32

Judge

¶33

Shyna

Smt. Shakuntala Devi v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Shakuntala Devi v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Jeevan Lal Jaiswal Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Kamlesh Sahu Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Kirti Contractors Private Limited Vs Municipal Corporation

Hira Motwani Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Semaiya Hariramani Vs Collector and District Magistrate

Smt. Sarita Sen Vs State of Chhattisgarh