Disposed

Harish Kumar Chandra v. State Of Chhattisgarh

Chhattisgarh HC16 Jun 2023WPC/1203/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Chhattisgarh held that since no final award was passed under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 before the repeal by the 2013 Act, compensation must be determined under the 2013 Act. The court directed authorities to determine compensation and deposit the amount within three months.

What did the court decide?

Authorized determination of compensation under the 2013 Act within three months and directed respondents to deposit the awarded amount.

Harish Kumar Chandra Vs State Of Chhattisgarh — Land Acquisition | Chhattisgarh HC (2023)

¶1

NAFR

¶2

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

¶3

WPC No. 1203 of 2015

¶4

Harish Kumar Chandra S/o Late Shri Badriprasad Chandra, Aged About 27 Years R/o Village Harethikala, P.H. No. 24, Tahsil Jaijaipur, P.S. Chowki Hasaud, Civil And Revenue District Jajgir Champa, Chhattisgarh, Chhattisgarh

¶5

---- Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Public Works Department, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Naya Raipur, Chhattisgarh, Chhattisgarh

¶8

Collector, Janjgir Champa, District Janjgir Champa, Chhattisgarh, District : Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh

¶9

Sub Divisional Ofcer Revenue Land Acquisition Ofcer, Ofce Of Sub Divisional Ofcer Sakti, District Janjgir Champa, Chhattisgarh, District : Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh

¶10

Executive Engineer Public Words Department, Bridge Construction Division Bilaspur, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh , District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh

¶11

Sub Divisional Ofcer, Public Works Department, Bridge Construction Sub Division Janjgir, District Janjgir Champa, Chhattisgarh , District : Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh

¶12

---- Respondents

¶13

For petitioner : Mr. Sourabh Sahu, Advocate. For Respondent/State : Mrs. Hamida Siddiqui, Dy.A.G.

¶14

Hon'ble Shri Justice Narendra Kumar Vyas.

¶15

Order on Board

¶16

(16-06-2023)

¶17

In pursuance of earlier direction passed by this court, Mr.Pankaj Dahre, SDM Sakti has appeared before this court.

¶18

The petitioner has fled the instant writ petition with a prayer that the respondent authorities may be directed to pay compensation of the land which has been acquired by the State with interest as per the provisions of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (for short, “the Act, 2013”).

¶19

¶20

The brief facts as refected from the record are that the petitioner is owner of the land bearing Khasra No 1107 having area 1.52 acres situated at village Harethikala, Patwari Halka No 24, Tahsil Jaijaipur, District Janjgir Champa out of which 0.33 acre of the land has been acquired by the State for construction of approach road on bridge which is made over on the Son River of Jamadi Harethikala road. The record would further show that there was a proposal for acquiring the land of the petitioner for preparing the approach road. Accordingly, Executive Engineer PWD Bilaspur vide its memo dated 24-3-2010 has submitted the amount towards compensation and vide its memo dated 20-10-2020 notifcation under Section 4(1) was issued by the Collector, Janjgir Champa with intention to acquire the land of the petitioner, but the proceedings could not be reached to its logical end. Thereafter, the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 was repealed by new Act namely the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (for short “the Act, 2013 ). Though the petitioner’s land was acquired by the State, but no compensation was paid, therefore, he has fled writ petition before this court which was registered as, WPC No. 2156 of 2014 wherein this Court has passed the order on 14.11.2014 as under:-

¶21

“Learned counsel for the State submits that in the matter of acquisition of land of the petitioner and determination of the compensation, respondent authority shall act strictly in accordance with the provisions of the Act, 2013 and whatever amount due to the petitioner, the same shall be paid to the petitioner and award to this efect is passed, the petitioner shall be entitled to such compensation.”

¶22

¶23

Despite that, no fnal award has been passed and compensation has been paid, therefore, he has fled the present writ petition and has prayed for reliefs as mentioned in the aforesaid paragraph.

¶24

On the basis of the above factual matrix, learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the respondent authorities may be directed to grant compensation as per the Act, 2013 with interest @ 15%..

¶25

On the other hand, learned State counsel opposing the aforesaid submissions would submit that notifcation under Sections 4, 6 & 9 was issued on 20-11-2010 then 24-3-20211 and proceedings were also initiated for determination of the compensation as per the old Act of 1894 but it could not be fnalised, thereafter, the proceedings were again issued under Section 2013 vide memo dated 25-7-2015 and proceedings were initiated by the Collector, Janjgir-Champa and the Sub Divisional Ofcer- Land Acquisition Ofcer started proceedings for determination of compensation. In the meanwhile, there was a new policy was introduced by the State on 2-3-20210 and as per the powers conferred under Section 10-A of the Act, 2013 it has been observed that certain provisions will not be applicable to the Act, 2013. Accordingly, the policy of settlement to acquire the land was initiated wherein the petitioner has also given concurrence but later on he has withdrawn the same. To substantiate this submission, the learned Dy. Advocate General has drawn attention of this court towards Annexure R/1. It is further submitted by the State that the proceedings are still pending and fnal award has not been passed.

¶26

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

¶27

It is not in dispute that the land of the petitioner has been acquired by the State for construction of approach road on bridge, but no fnal compensation has been paid.

¶28

Hon’ble Division Bench of this court in the case of M/s Natural Collections (LLP) and another vs. State of Chhattisgarh and others,

¶29

¶30

(WA No 51 of 2019 decided on 9-3-2023) has examined this issue and has held that the compensation has to be paid along with interest as per the Act, 2013. Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court has held in para 18 & 19 which read as under.

¶31

“18.From perusal of Section 6 of General Clauses Act, 1897 as well as Section 114 of the Act, 2013, it is quite vivid that once the Act, 1894 has been repealed and no action for acquisition of land has been initiated as per the Act, 1894, then any action for acquisition of the land has to be taken as per the Act, 2013 only as respondent No. 3 without any authority of law, cannot acquire the lands of the appellants in view of well-settled legal position as discussed in the above-stated paragraphs. Therefore, it is incumbent upon respondent No. 3 to determine the compensation as per the Act, 2013. Section 24 of the Act, 2013 provides that the land acquisition process under the Act No. 1 of the Act, 1894, shall be deemed to have lapsed in certain cases and the said issue had come up for consideration before the Constitution Bench of the Hon’ble the Supreme Court in Indore Development Authority (supra) , wherein it has been held at paragraph 366 as under:-

¶32

“366. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we answer the questions as under:

¶33

366.1. Under the provisions of Section 24(1)(a) in case the award is not made as on 1.1.2014 the date of commencement of Act of 2013, there is no lapse of proceedings. Compensation has to be determined under the provisions of Act of 2013.

¶34

1. In case the award has been passed within the window period of five years excluding the period covered by an interim order of the court, then proceedings shall continue as provided under Section 24(1)(b) of the Act of 2013 under the Act of 1894 as if it has not been repealed.

¶35

¶36

366.3. The word ‘or’ used in Section 24(2) between possession and compensation has to be read as ‘nor’ or as ‘and’. The deemed lapse of land acquisition proceedings under Section 24(2) of the Act of 2013 takes place where due to inaction of authorities for five years or more prior to commencement of the said Act, the possession of land has not been taken nor compensation has been paid. In other words, in case possession has been taken, compensation has not been paid then there is no lapse. Similarly, if compensation has been paid, possession has not been taken then there is no lapse.

¶37

366.4. The expression 'paid' in the main part of Section 24(2) of the Act of 2013 does not include a deposit of compensation in court. The consequence of non-deposit is provided in proviso to Section 24(2) in case it has not been deposited with respect to majority of land holdings then all beneficiaries (landowners) as on the date of notification for land acquisition under Section 4 of the Act of 1894 shall be entitled to compensation in accordance with the provisions of the Act of 2013. In case the obligation under Section 31 of the Land Acquisition Act of 1894 has not been fulfilled, interest under Section 34 of the said Act can be granted. Non-deposit of compensation (in court) does not result in the lapse of land acquisition proceedings. In case of non-deposit with respect to the majority of holdings for five years or more, compensation under the Act of 2013 has to be paid to the "landowners" as on the date of notification for land acquisition under Section 4 of the Act of 1894.

¶38

366.5. In case a person has been tendered the compensation as provided under Section 31(1) of the Act of 1894, it is not open to him to claim that acquisition has lapsed under Section 24(2) due to non-payment or non-deposit of compensation in court. The obligation to pay is complete by tendering the amount under Section 31(1). Land owners who had refused to accept

¶39

¶40

compensation or who sought reference for higher compensation, cannot claim that the acquisition proceedings had lapsed under Section 24(2) of the Act of 2013.

¶41

366.6. The proviso to Section 24(2) of the Act of 2013 is to be treated as part of Section 24(2) not part of Section 24(1)(b).

¶42

366.7. The mode of taking possession under the Act of 1894 and as contemplated under Section 24(2) is by drawing of inquest report/ memorandum. Once award has been passed on taking possession under Section 16 of the Act of 1894, the land vests in State there is no divesting provided under Section 24(2) of the Act of 2013, as once possession has been taken there is no lapse under Section 24(2).

¶43

366.8. The provisions of Section 24(2) providing for a deemed lapse of proceedings are applicable in case authorities have failed due to their inaction to take possession and pay compensation for five years or more before the Act of 2013 came into force, in a proceeding for land acquisition pending with concerned authority as on 1.1.2014. The period of subsistence of interim orders passed by court has to be excluded in the computation of five years.

¶44

366.9. Section 24(2) of the Act of 2013 does not give rise to new cause of action to question the legality of concluded proceedings of land acquisition. Section 24 applies to a proceeding pending on the date of enforcement of the Act of 2013, i.e., 1.1.2014. It does not revive stale and time-barred claims and does not reopen concluded proceedings nor allow landowners to question the legality of mode of taking possession to reopen proceedings or mode of deposit of compensation in the treasury instead of court to invalidate acquisition.”

¶45

Thus, it is clear that without initiating a land acquisition proceeding, respondent No. 3 has taken the lands in question for construction of road. Respondent No. 3 has failed to establish

¶46

¶47

that they have acquired the subject land in accordance with law and paid compensation to the appellants. The learned Single Judge failed to take note of the fact that without initiating acquisition proceeding, respondent No. 3 had acquired the lands of the appellants. Therefore, the order passed by learned Single Judge on 17.09.2018 in WPC No. 2540 of 2018, deserves to be set aside”.

¶48

Considering the aforesaid factual matrix and the fact that no award has been passed under the Act, 2013, respondent authorities shall determine the compensation as per the Act, 2013 within three months from the date of receipt of copy of this order as the land of the petitioner has already been acquired in the year 2009 itself. It is also directed that since the land has been acquired by the Public Works Department, therefore, respondents No.1, 4 and 5 shall also take immediate steps to deposit the amount after determining the compensation in accordance with the Act of 2013.

¶49

A copy of this order be communicated to respondents No.1, 4 and 5 with a direction that they may take immediate steps to comply with the order passed by this court.

¶50

With the aforesaid directions, the instant writ petition is disposed of.

¶51

Raju

Harish Kumar Chandra v. State Of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Harish Kumar Chandra 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

Ghanshyam Choudhari Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Mrs. Vinita Agrawal Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Puran Lal Thakur Vs S Prakash (Ias)

Jhumuklal Sahu and Others Vs Smt. Suruja Bai and Others

Gautam Shriwas Vs State Of Chhattisgarh

Kalyan Singh (Died) Through Lrs. Vs (a). Smt. Sarita Mishra and Others