Disposed

Bachan Patel v. National Highway Authority of India Ltd.

Chhattisgarh HC20 Feb 2019WPC/581/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Single Judge disposed of the writ petition directed against a multiplier of 1 used for land compensation. It directed the petitioner to move a representation to the Collector within 4 weeks to seek revision based on the fresh notification mandated by the Division Bench in Smt. Anita Agrawal.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner directed to move a representation before the Collector within 4 weeks to decide compensation based on the fresh notification.

Bachan Patel Vs National Highway Authority of India Ltd. — Land Acquisition | Chhattisgarh HC (2019)

¶1

NAFR

¶2

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

¶3

WPC No. 581 of 2019

¶4

Bachan Patel, S/o Shri Birbal Patel, Aged About 65 Years, R/o Village Turkadih, Tahsil Takhatpur, District- Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh

¶5

---- Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

National Highway Authority Of India Ltd. Through Project Director, Bilaspur Unit, Abhilasha Parisar, New Bus Stand, Bilaspur, District- Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh., District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh

¶8

State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Collector, Bilaspur, DistirctBilaspur, Chhattisgarh., District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh

¶9

The Land Acquisition Officer-Cum-Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue) Bilaspur, Tahsil And District- Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh., District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh

¶10

---- Respondents

¶11

For Petitioner Shri B. M. Roy, Advocate For Respondent-State Shri Anmol Sharma, PL For Respondent-NHAI Shri B. Gopa Kumar, Advocate

¶12

Hon'ble Justice Mr. Prashant Kumar Mishra

¶13

Order On Board

¶14

20/02/2019

¶15

Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner's land has been acquired for Bilaspur-Katghora National Highway Road. However, while assessing compensation, multiplier of 1 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 setaside the Notification dated 04.12.2014, applying multiplier factor

¶16

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.

¶17

In Smt. Anita Agrawal (supra), the following has been held by

¶18

the Division Bench in paras 10, 11 & 12 :

¶19

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.

¶20

11.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.

¶21

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.”

¶22

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) 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

¶23

Government's fresh Notification in terms of the directions issued

¶24

by the Division Bench.

¶25

The writ petition stands disposed of.

¶26

Sd/Prashant Kumar Mishra Judge

¶27

Nirala

Bachan Patel v. National Highway Authority of India Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bachan Patel v. National Highway Authority of India Ltd.

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

Anil Kumar Rajwade Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Jayshree Balaji Educational Society Vs The Oriental Bank Of Commerce

Golchha Stationery and Sports Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Abdul Shafique Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Gorelal Chandrakar Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Century Cement Proprietor Century Textiles and Industries Ltd, Vs Union of India