Disposed

Shymlal v. State of Chhattisgarh

Chhattisgarh HC5 Mar 2019WPC/782/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This Single Judge Court disposed of a writ petition regarding land acquisition compensation where the use of a multiplier of 1 was challenged. Relying on a Division Bench judgment, the Court directed the petitioner to move a representation to the Collector within four weeks to seek revised compensation pending a fresh notification on multiplier factors.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner directed to move a representation to the concerned Collector within 4 weeks; Collector to decide within 10 weeks of fresh State notification.

Shymlal Vs State of Chhattisgarh — Land Acquisition | Chhattisgarh HC (2019)

¶1

1 WPC No. 782 of 2019

¶2

NAFR

¶3

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

¶4

WPC No. 782 of 2019

¶5

Shymlal S/o Aberam Aged About 73 Years, R/o Village - Sakri, P.H. No. 16/19 Revenue Circle - Lavan, Tahsil - Baloda Bazar District Baloda Bazar - Bhatapara Chhattisgarh.

¶6

---- Petitioner

¶7

Versus

¶8

State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of Revenue, Mantralaya, Naya Raipur, Raipur District Raipur Chhattisgarh.

¶9

Collector-Cum-Officiating Dy. Secretary (In Land Acquisition Matter) District Baloda Bazar-Bhatapara Chhattisgarh.

¶10

SDO-cum-Land Acquisition Officer Baloda Bazar (Performed The Duties Of A Collector In The Matter Of Land Acquisition Matter), Tahsil - Baloda Bazar, District-Baloda BazarBhatapara Chhattisgarh.

¶11

Executive Engineer Publics Works Department Baloda Bazar Division, Baloda-Bazar, District Baloda BazarBhatapara Chhattisgarh.

¶12

---- Respondents

¶13

For Petitioner :- Shri Sushobhit Singh, Advocate For Respondent-State :- Shri Rajul Jha, G.A.

¶14

2 WPC No. 782 of 2019

¶15

Order On Board By

¶16

Hon'ble Justice Shri Prashant Kumar Mishra

¶17

05/03/2019

¶18

Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner's land has been acquired for the construction of bypass 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 set-aside the Notification dated 04.12.2014, applying multiplier factor of 1 with direction to the State Government to issue fresh Notification indicating today the multiplier factors in terms of the guidelines laid down in the statute and the judgment of the Division Bench.

¶19

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

¶20

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

¶21

3 WPC No. 782 of 2019

¶22

the remote villagers, fair compensation and rehabilitation, which is the primary object behind the new Land Acquisition Act of 2013.

¶23

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.

¶24

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.”

¶25

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 Government's fresh Notification in terms of the directions issued by the Division Bench.

¶26

Sd/Prashant Kumar Mishra Judge

¶27

Ankit

Shymlal v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shymlal 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

M/S R. B. Construction Vs State of Chhattisgarh

M/S R.B Construction Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Sagar Singh Kamal Vs Management of Lanco

Smt. Durga Devi Gupta Vs State of Chhattisgarh

State Of Chhattisgarh Vs Chhattisgarh State Information Commission And Ors.

Bachan Patel Vs State of Chhattisgarh