Disposed

Ambika Prasad Dewangan v. State Of Chhattisgarh And Ors.

Chhattisgarh HC20 Jul 2022WPC/2471/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A second round of litigation where the petitioner challenged the State Government's occupation of his property for a school. The State claimed it vacated the premises in 2011. The court held the present writ petition cannot grant relief at this stage, directing the petitioner to approach the Civil Court.

What did the court decide?

The present Writ Petition stands disposed of, reserving the petitioner's right to approach the competent Civil Court for eviction of encroachers or claim of compensation.

Ambika Prasad Dewangan Vs State Of Chhattisgarh And Ors. — Land Acquisition | Chhattisgarh HC (2022)

¶1

-1-

¶2

N/AFR

¶3

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 2471 OF 2014

¶4

• Ambika Prasad Dewangan, S/o Late Dwarika Nath Dewangan, aged about 50 years, R/o Baigapara, near Shitla Mandir, Durg, Distt. Durg (C.G.)

¶5

... Petitioner

¶6

versus

¶7

1 . State of Chhattisgarh, through: Secretary, School Education Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, New Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.)

¶8

2 . Director, Lok Shikshan Sanchalanalaya, Raipur (C.G.)

¶9

3 . District Education Officer, Durg, District Durg (C.G.)

¶10

4 . Collector, G.E. Road, Durg, District Durg (C.G.)

¶11

... Respondents

¶12

For Petitioner : Mr. H.B. Agrawal, Senior Advocate a/w Ms. Preeti Yadav, Advocate. For Respondents : Mr. Rahul Jha, Govt. Advocate.

¶13

Hon'ble Shri Justice P. Sam Koshy Order on Board [ 2 0/07/2022]

¶14

1. The present is a second round of litigation. The matter pertains to the property situated in Khasra No.308/1 at Model Town, Junwani, Bhilai, P.H. No.21, R.I.C., Durg-I, Tahsil and District Durg. The said land is measured around 8100sqft.

¶15

2. Contention of learned Senior Counsel for Petitioner is that the State Government has illegally entered upon the said property and raised certain construction over there and were also operating a school on the said plot.

¶16

3. Petitioner had initially filed a Writ Petition i.e. W.P.(C) No.2662/2008 which came up for disposal before this Court on 20.4.2011. While disposing of the said Writ Petition, it was held as under:-

¶17

“6. In view of the aforesaid documents, it appears that the authorities of the respondent themselves have taken steps for shifting of the school to some other Government land, even though initially, the Land Acquisition Officer, vide his memo dated 11/5/07 (Annexure P-1) proposed payment of compensation.

¶18

-2-

¶19

7. In that view of the matter, the respondent authority shall take appropriate decision either with regard to returning the land of the petitioner or make payment of compensation to him in accordance with law. The Land Acquisition Officer shall take appropriate decision with regard to the entitlement of the petitioner for compensation, in case, the land of the petitioner is not returned, as proposed in various communications referred to above. If the petitioner is neither paid compensation nor the land is vacated, it would be open for the petitioner to take recourse to such remedy as may be available to him under the law. The respondent No.2 and 3 shall take decision with regard to shifting of the school within a reasonable time. In case, the school is not shifted within a period of six months from the date of receipt of copy of this order, the Land Acquisition Officer shall take steps as directed by this Court. ”

¶20

4. It appears that the grievance of the Petitioner was not redressed even thereafter, which has led to the filing of the present Writ Petition.

¶21

5. This Court had issued Notice to the Respondents in the present Petition and the State Government have entered appearance and filed their Reply as early as on 20.8.2015. In the Reply, the State has taken specific stand, which for ready reference is being reproduced herein under:-

¶22

“5. Therefore, it was clear that the petitioner was entitled to either the land being returned to him or payment of compensation. It was made clear by the Court while deciding the earlier writ petition on 20/04/2011, that, if the petitioner is neither paid compensation nor the land is vacated it would be open for him to take recourse to such remedy as may be available to him under law. Presently, the land has been returned to the petitioner which is evident by letter dated 12/09/2011 (Annexure R/2) issued by the Office of the Block Education Officer, Durg. By this letter dated 12/09/2011 the petitioner was informed that he would be handed over possession of the School Building on 15/09/2011 at 01:00 PM (afternoon).

¶23

6. Thereafter, vide letter dated 30/09/2011 (Annexure R/3) the petitioner was again informed that the respondent authorities have vacated the school premises and as such the petitioner is free to occupy the premises and to use the land as he deems fit.

¶24

7. Accordingly, a Panchnama was prepared on 26/11/2011 (Annexure R/4) in which B.E.O. and the petitioner were present, the land in question was measured and thereafter, the said land was found to have been occupied in some parts by one Sukhwant Singh, it is submitted that Sukhwant Singh has not been arrayed as a respondent in the present writ

¶25

-3-

¶26

petition and it is made clear that the answering respondents herein, have no knowledge with respect to occupation of the land in question as well as the premises by the said Sukhwant Singh. ”

¶27

6. It would also be relevant at this juncture to take note of the contents of Annexure R/2 and Annexure R/3 enclosed along with Reply of the State Government, which for ready reference are also being reproduced below :-

¶28

“Annexure R/2 , dated 12.9.2011

¶29

mijksDr fo”k;kafdr ,oa lanafHkZr i= ds ifjikyu esa izkFkfed 'kkyk Hkou ekWMy Vkmu fHkykbZ dks vkidks fnukad 15-09-2011 dks nksigj 1-00 cts gLrkarfjr fd;k tkosxk vr% vki bl dk;kZy; esa fnukad 15-09-2011 dks nksigj 1-00 cts vfuok;Z :i ls mifLFr gksosA

¶30

Annexure R/3 , dated 30.9.2011

¶31

ekuuh; mPp U;k;ky; ds }kjk lanfHkZr izdj.k esa ikfjr fu.kZ; fnukad 20-411 ds ifjikyu ftlesa 'kkyk Hkou dh Hkweh [kkyh djus gsrq funZsf'kr fd;k x;k gS rnuqlkj vkidh futh Hkweh [kljk ua-841 jdck 0-07 gs- esa lapkfyr 'kkl- izkFkfed 'kkyk ekWMy Vkmu dks vU;= LFkkukarfjr dj Hkwfe ij ls dCtk NksM+ fn;k x;k gSA mDr Hkweh dk mi;ksx vki tc pkgs tSlk dj ldrs gSaA ”

¶32

7. From the Reply of the State, it further reveals that subsequent to the issuance of the aforesaid two correspondences, dated 12.9.2011 and 30.9.2011, a Panchnama was also prepared in presence of all the Authorities on 26.11.2011. In the course of preparation of the Panchnama, it was found that there was some illegal encroachment made by one Sukhwant Singh without the knowledge, notice and permission of the State Government. The said person had encroached the property after the State Government had vacated the possession of the said premises by making a correspondence to the Petitioner to take over the possession of the same.

¶33

8. The stand of the State Government even today is that they have already relinquished the said portion of the land and the construction raised thereon. It was specifically informed and intimated to the Petitioner, of the State having left the said premises and the Petitioner was also requested to take over possession of the said land.

¶34

-4-

¶35

9. Under the circumstances, the relief sought for by the Petitioner in the present Writ Petition cannot be granted at this juncture exercising the Writ jurisdiction of this Court. If at all the said premises has been later on illegally occupied or encroached upon by Sukhwant Singh or any other person, the remedy available to the Petitioner for getting the said person evicted from the premises is by making appropriate proceeding before the concerned competent Civil Court. As regards the granting of compensation or rent for the period the State Government was on occupation of the said premises, this again is an issue which the Petitioner would have to raise before the concerned Civil Court.

¶36

10. Accordingly, in the factual backdrop of the case and the specific stand of the State Government in their Reply, reserving the right of the Petitioner for availing such other remedies available to him under the Law, the present Writ Petition as of now stands disposed of.

¶37

Sd/- (P. Sam Koshy) Judge

¶38

/sharad/

Ambika Prasad Dewangan v. State Of Chhattisgarh And Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ambika Prasad Dewangan v. State Of Chhattisgarh And Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sanjay Modi Vs Smt. Kiran Kaushal

Shailesh Singh Kushwaha Vs Chhattisgarh Housingh Board

M/S Gurudev Drugs and Industries Vs State of Chhattisgarh

M/S Landmark Engineer Vs State of Chhattisgarh

M/S Landmark Royal Engineering (I) Pvt. Ltd. Vs State of Chhattisgarh

M/S Ind Power Limited Vs State of Chhattisgarh