The High Court of Chhattisgarh dismissed a writ appeal filed by land owners challenging a Collector's review order that re-acquired their land. The Court upheld the lower court's finding that land possession had long vested with the State, barring restoration claims.
Writ appeal dismissed; any interim order vacated.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
1
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR WA No. 231 of 2020
---- Appellants
Versus
2
Raipur (C.G.) The Executive Engineer, Chhattisgarh Housing Board, Shankar Nagar, Raipur, Chhattisgarh.
---- Respondents
(Cause-title taken from Case Information System)
| For Appellants | : | Mr. Ashish Shrivastava, Senior Advocate, assisted by Mr. Aman Pandey, Advocate. |
|---|---|---|
| For Respondents/State | : | Mr. Chandresh Shrivastava, Additional Advocate General. |
| For Respondents No. 3&4 | : | Mr. Sanjay Patel, Advocate. |
Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi, Judge
Judgment on Board
Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice
12.10.2023
Heard Mr. Ashish Shrivastava, learned Senior Advocate, assisted by Mr. Aman Pandey, learned counsel for the appellants. Also heard Mr. Chandresh Shrivastava, learned Additional Advocate General, appearing for respondents No. 1 & 2 and Mr. Sanjay Patel, learned counsel, appearing for respondents No. 3 & 4.
2. The present intra Court appeal has been filed by the appellants/writ petitioners against the order dated 04.02.2020 passed by the learned Single Judge in WP No. 381 of 2005 ( Smt. Kiran Devi & Others vs. State of Chhattisgarh & Others ), whereby the learned Single Judge has dismissed the writ petition filed by the appellants/writ petitioners.
3
3. Learned Senior Advocate for the appellants/writ petitioners submits that the appellants No. 1 and 2 are the exclusive owners of the land bearing Khasra Nos. 613/128 and 614/163 admeasuring 1.190 hectare and 0.118 hectare respectively situated at village Son Dongri, Patwari Halka No. 107, Tahsil and District Raipur (hereinafter these lands are referred to as ‘the land in dispute’). He further submits that earlier the land in dispute was owned by appellants No. 3 and 4, who have purchased the said land vide registered sale deed dated 27.02.1999 and 11.02.1990 respectively. Pursuant to the aforesaid sale, names of the appellants No. 3 and 4 were mutated in the revenue records and they have been placed in possession of the land in dispute. After completing all necessary formalities, even in respect of Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, ‘Act of 1894’), the appellants No. 3 and 4 sold the land in dispute to the appellants No. 1 & 2.
4. It is further submitted by the learned Senior Advocate for the appellants that a proposal was sent by the Executive Engineer of M.P. Housing Board Raipur on 12.06.1989 for acquisition of the land admeasuring 35.043 hectare situated at village Son Dongri. A request for acquisition of the aforesaid land by invoking urgency clause was also made on behalf of the M.P. Housing Board. The Commissioner, Raipur Division, Raipur, vide order dated 25.04.1990 granted permission to invoke Section 17(1) of the Act of 1894. Accordingly, notification under Section 4(1), declaration under Section 6 and the notification under Section 17(1) of the Act of 1894 was issued simultaneously on 25.05.1990. The aforesaid notifications were published in Daily newspaper “Amrit Sandesh” and “Nav Bharat” on 08.06.1990 and 09.06.1990 respectively. He also submits that notification under Section 4(1), as well as declaration under Section 6 of the Act of 1894 could not be made simultaneously. The publication of the
4
notification under Section 4(1) and declaration under Section 6 of the Act of 1894 is per se bad in law.
5. Mr. Shrivastava further submits that the notice purporting to be under sub-Section (3) of Section 9 of the Act of 1894 was issued. The appellants No. 3 and 4 have submitted their objection. In the objection, the appellants pointed out that after purchase of the land, a boundary wall as well as servant quarters have been constructed on the land in question. The appellants No. 3 and 4 further made a request that even though the land held by them is exempted from the acquisition proceedings, then also, the Housing Scheme framed by the Housing Board cannot successfully be executed. Alternatively, appellants No. 3 and 4 made a prayer that they should be granted compensation for the remaining land. However, the objection submitted by the appellants No. 3 and 4 was not considered and eventually and award was passed on 05.08.1991. He also submits that from perusal of the award, it is apparent that the objections preferred by the appellants No. 3 and 4 were not considered. The Land Acquisition Officer, acting on the report submitted by the Patwari with regard to value of the land, determined the compensation. Thereafter, a notice under Section 12(2) of the Act of 1894 was issued to the appellants No. 3 and 4. The appellants No. 3 and 4 submitted a reply to the aforesaid notice in which it was submitted that a developed plot should be given to each of the appellants No. 3 and 4 and the compensation in respect of the land should be assessed at the rate of Rs. 20 per sq.ft.
6. It is argued by Mr. Shrivastava that despite the fact that the award was passed way back in the year 1991, the possession of the lands in question was not taken from the appellants No. 3 and 4. The appellants No.3 and 4 after obtaining building permission from Gram Panchayat raised
5
construction on the land in question. He further argued that till the date of filing of the writ petition, the appellants No. 3 and 4 are being continued to be in possession of the land in question. On 13.05.1999, Officers of M.P. Housing Board tried to forcibly demolish the boundary wall belong to appellants No. 3 and 4. Thereupon, a First Information Report (FIR) was lodged and thereafter, the M.P. Housing Board lodge a false and frivolous report against the appellants No. 3 and 4 and then the attorney, namely, Ram Bhagat Agrawal intervened to the effect that he is trying to raise construction on the land in question. The Tahsildar after making enquiry found that the report which has been lodged by the M.P. Housing Board was false and frivolous and that the appellants No. 3 and 4 are in possession of the land in dispute. It was further found by the Tahsildar, in his report dated 27.12.2000, that with a view to avoid payment of compensation of the construction raised by the appellants No. 3 and 4, false and frivolous complaint has been made by the M.P. Housing Board.
7. Mr. Shrivastava submits that though the award was passed way back in the year 1991, till filing of the writ petition, after a lapse of about more than 10 years, possession of the land in question had not been taken by the M.P. Housing Board. It appears that M.P. Housing Board does not require the land in question for the purpose of execution of its Housing Scheme. The appellants No. 3 and 4 also submitted application on 07.08.1999 to the Secretary, Land Revenue Department, Vallabh Bhawan, Bhopal, however, no order could be passed on the application submitted by the appellants No. 3 and 4. He further submits that with effect from 01.11.2000, the State of Chhattisgarh came into existence. Thereafter, the appellants No. 3 and 4 again submitted an application on 05.03.2001 to respondent No. 1 in which the appellants No. 3 and 4 made a prayer that since possession of the land
6
has not been taken, and therefore, the land held by the appellants No. 3 and 4 be exempted from the proceedings under the Act of 1894 and be released in favour of the appellants No. 3 and 4, however, till the date of filing of the writ petition no action on the application submitted by the appellants No. 3 and 4 had taken.
8. Learned Senior Advocate further states that the appellants No. 3 & 4 were left with no other option, but to file a writ petition bearing WP No.1089 of 2001, before this Court which was disposed off by this Court, vide order dated 09.04.2003 with a direction to the respondent No. 1 to take an appropriate decision on the application as filed by the appellants No. 3 and 4 under Section 48 of the Act of 1894. In pursuance of the aforesaid order passed by this Court appellants No. 3 and 4 again filed an application dated 06.05.2003 before the respondent No. 1. He also states that the appellants No. 3 and 4 felt that the respondent No. 1 issued direction to Sub Divisional Officer for deciding the application as filed by the appellants No. 3 and 4, the Sub Divisional Officer has registered a revenue case. The proceedings were initiated and after considering all the proceedings, on 08.07.2004, an order was passed by the Collector exempting the land in dispute from the proceedings of Act of 1894 and the land was reverted back to the appellants No. 3 and 4. After passing of the aforesaid order dated 08.07.2004, on 12.07.2004, the Collector has passed an order cancelling the earlier notification by which the land was notified in favour of the Housing Board. While passing the order, the Collector has simultaneously directed that the notification be issued in the local newspaper as well as in the official gazette regarding cancellation of the notification which was made in favour of the Housing Board.
9. Mr. Shrivastava further submits that after passing of the aforesaid
7
order, the notification was also issued in the official gazette dated 13.08.2004. Mutation proceedings have also been started, but the Tahsildar, Raipur has some doubts regarding the same and it appeared that he wrote a letter dated 13.07.2004 to the Collector seeking some clarification. In reply to the letter of the Tahsildar, on 14.07.2004, on behalf of the Collector, a letter was sent to the Tahsildar permitting him the Collector has no objection whatsoever for mutation and the same has to be done in accordance with law. After denotification and recording the name of the appellants No. 3 and 4, the appellants No. 3 and 4 sold the land in dispute to the appellants No. 1 and 2 vide registered sale deed dated 19.07.2004 and after purchasing the land, names of the appellants No. 1 and 2 have also been recorded in revenue records. He also submits that after about six months of passing of the order dated 08.07.2004, on 12.01.2005, the Housing Board moved before the Collector again by filing a review petition submitting in it that the said order be reviewed. As the appellants No. 3 and 4 have already sold the land in dispute to the appellants No. 1 and 2, as soon as the appellants No. 1 and 2 came to know about filing of review petition, they filed an application dated 20.01.2005 under Order Rule 10(2) of Code of Civil Procedure read with Section 32 of Land Revenue Code.
10. It is further contented by the learned Senior Advocate that the review application moved by the Housing Board in a pre-planned manner and with the consent of the Collector and that is why the Collector had started proceedings in a very hasty manner with a predetermined view to review its earlier order dated 08.07.2004. The matter was first taken up on 12.01.2005, 19.01.2005, 24.01.2005 and 25.01.2005 and within two days, on 27.01.2005, the order dated 27.01.2005 was passed by which the
8
earlier order dated 08.07.2004 passed by the Collector has been reviewed by himself quashing the earlier today. While passing the order dated 27.01.2005, the Collector has even not bothered to see the earlier records and his own order and has passed the order dated 27.01.2005 and in an arbitrary manner with a predetermined notion to allow the same because of some new policy of the Government to oblige the Housing Board ignoring the factual legal position. He also contended that the order dated 08.07.2004 which was passed by the Collector while denotifying the land was a well-reasoned order and was passed after considering all the facts and circumstances of the case. On the earlier occasion, the Collector has considered the report of Land Acquisition Officer and the spot inspection report of Sub Divisional Officer. However, while reviewing its earlier order, the Collector in a shocking manner has ignored the entire record. Therefore, the order dated 27.01.2005 is beyond jurisdiction of the Collector because the said application was hopelessly time barred, even the period for filing appeal had expired and thus, the earlier order dated 08.07.2004 had attained finality.
11. It is further submitted by the learned Senior Advocate that the appellants approached this Court by filing a writ petition, being registered as WP No. 381 of 2005, challenging the order dated 27.01.2005 passed by the respondent No. 2/Collector reviewing its own order dated 08.07.2004 which had attained finality. He also submits that the learned Single Judge while hearing the matter finally and after having heard the parties dismissed the writ petition vide impugned order dated 04.02.2020 holding that the order of the review passed by the Collector wherein he has held that he did not have jurisdiction to exercise power under Section 48 of the Act of 1894 as the land vested in the State cannot be faulted. Therefore, the aforesaid
9
order dated 04.02.2020 whereby, learned Single Judge, dismissed the writ petition is untenable in the eyes of law.
12. On the other hand, learned Additional Advocate General, appearing for respondents No. 1 and 2/State and learned counsel, appearing for respondents No. 3 and 4 submit that the learned Single Judge after considering all the aspects of the matter has rightly dismissed the writ petition filed by the writ petitioners, in which no interference is called for.
13. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned judgment and materials available on record.
14. From perusal of the record, it transpires that the learned Single Judge has held that the possession of land was given to the Housing Board in the year 1992 by preparation of Panchnama vide Annexure R-1 (annexed in the writ petition) and because of the fact it is a vast land, a pragmatic approach has to be adopted and conduct of parties would be relevant and considering the conduct of the appellants as the objection filed by the appellants was in the year 1999 i.e. , after 07 years and the ground was projected that the superstructure existed over the land and it was in possession of the appellants cannot be accepted, with the time as has elapsed and the entire oral evidence which led by the appellants cannot supersede the fact that the possession was taken by way of Panchnama, by the Housing Board which too was recorded and signed by the Government Officials. If the appellants were agile of their right, they cannot be expected to remain dormant for a long period 07 years when their lands were acquired way back in the year 1992. Therefore, the collective evaluation of facts on record would show that the land vested in the State was free from all encumbrances and the appellants would become a persona non-grata once the land vested in the State and they will have only
10
right to get compensation for the same. Consequently the appellants cannot claim any right of restoration of land on any ground whatsoever. Therefore, the order of the review passed by the Collector wherein he has held that he did not have jurisdiction to exercise power under Section 48 of the Act 1894 as the land vested in the State cannot be faulted.
15. Considering the pleadings made in writ appeal, submissions advanced by the learned counsel appearing for the parties and also considering the findings recorded by the learned Single Judge while dismissing the writ petition filed by the writ petitioners, we are of the considered opinion that the learned Single Judge has not committed any illegality, irregularity or jurisdictional error warranting interference by this Court.
16. Accordingly, the present writ appeal being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed .
17. Interim order, if any, stands vacated.
Sd/- Sd/- (Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice
Brijmohan
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the learned Single Judge committed any illegality, irregularity or jurisdictional error by dismissing the writ petition challenging the Collector's review order.
Whether the appellants could claim restoration of land acquired in 1992 given that possession was taken via Panchnama well before their recent objections.
2 provisions across 1 enactments
Smt. Kiran Devi Agrawal & Ors.
State of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Revenue Department
The Collector, Raipur
The Chhattisgarh Housing Board
Ramesh Sinha
Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
