Disposed

Padmawati (Died) Through Lrs. v. State of Chhattisgarh

Chhattisgarh HC1 Aug 2023WPC/1855/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This order dismisses a writ petition challenging land acquisition proceedings as private. The Court ruled that land acquired for industrial development by a State Corporation served a public purpose. Regarding compensation disputes, the Court directed petitioners to approach the Collector for a reference under Section 18, allowing time for the pending writ proceedings to be considered under Sectio

What did the court decide?

Directing petitioners to apply for reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 within two months, with benefit of pending writ inclusion under Section 14 of Limitation Act, and Refere

Padmawati (Died) Through Lrs. Vs State of Chhattisgarh — Land Acquisition | Chhattisgarh HC (2023)

¶1

NAFR

¶2

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

¶3

WPC No. 1855 of 2012

¶4

Padmawati W/o Lt. Shri Ram Prasad Aged About 70 Years Vill. Kolam, P.O. Kolam, Tah. And P.S. Tamnar, Dist. Raigarh C.G., Chhattisgarh (died through following legal representative).

¶5

1(a) Prafull Kumar Sharma s/o. Late Shri Ram Prasad Kar Sharma, aged about 72 years, Caste Brhaman, resident of village Kolam, Post Ofice Kolam, Tahsil & PS Tamnar, District Raigarh (CG).

¶6

Malavati @ Malti Wd/o Krichanchandra Aged About 72 Years Vill. Kolam, P.O. Kolam, Tah. And P.S. Tamnar, Dist. Raigarh C.G.496107, District : Raigarh, Chhattisgarh (died through following legal representatives)

¶7

2(a) Nehru Lal Sharema s./o. Late Krtishna Chandra Sharma, aged about 63 years, resident of village Kolam, Post Office Kolam, Tahsil & PS Tamnar, District Raigarh (CG).

¶8

2(b) Shekhar Chandra Sharma, s/o. Late Krishna Chandra Sharma,, aged about 64 years, resident of village Kolam, Post Office Kolam, Tahsil & P.S. Tamnar, District Raigarh (CG).

¶9

Dhawleshwar S/o Lt. Panditkar Sharma Aged About 75 Years Vill. Kolam, P.O. Kolam, Tah. And P.S. Tamnar, Dist. Raigarh C.G.496107, District : Raigarh, Chhattisgarh (died through following legal representatives).

¶10

3(a) Suresh Sharma, s/o. Latge Dhaleshwar Prasad Sharma, aged about 73 years, r/o. Ward No.2, Shankar Nagar, Dhangardipal, Raigarh, Tah & Distt. Raigarh (CG).

¶11

3(b) Gyan Chandra Sharma s/o. Latge Dhaleshwar Prasad Sharma, aged about 64 years, r/o. House No.167, Chhoteattarmuda, Raigarh, Tah& Dist. Raigarh (CG).

¶12

3(c) Ashok Kumar Sharma, s/o. Late Dhaleshwar Prasad Sharma, aged about 62 years, r/o. Resident of village Kolam, Post Ofice Kolam Tahsil; & PS. Tamnar, Distt. Raigarh (CG).

¶13

3(d) Prakash Chandra Sharma s/o. Late Dhaleshwar Prasad Sharma, aged about 60 years, r/o. Resident of village Kolam, Post Office Kolam, Tahsil & PS Tamnar, Distt. Raigarh (CG).

¶14

Nar Singh S/o Lt. Panditkar Sharma Aged About 70 Years Vill. Kolam, P.O. Kolam, Tah. And P.S. Tamnar, Dist. Raigarh C.G.496107, District : Raigarh, Chhattisgarh (died through following legal representatives).

¶15

4(a) Bhaktwatsal Sharma s/o. Late Narsingh Sharma, aged about 58 years, r/o. Village Palidih, Tah Pathalgaon, Dist. Jashpur (CG).

¶16

4(b) Vikram Prasad Sharma s/o. Late Narsingh Sharma, aged about 56 years, r/o. village Kolam Post Office Kolam, Tahsil and PS Tamnar, District Raigarh (CG).

¶17

4(c) Chhatrapal Sharma s/o. Late Narsingh Sharma, aged about 54 years, r/o. Maharishi School Road, Vijayp;ur, Boirdadar, Tah & Dist. Raigarh (CG).

¶18

¶19

4(d) Viveka Nand Sharma s/o. Late Narsingh Sharma, aged about 52 years, r/o. House Nop.454/1, Mukyabasti Near Block Office, Lailunga, Tahsil Lailunga, District Raigarh (CG).

¶20

Pyare Lal Sharma S/o Lt. Shri Krishnachandra Sharma Aged About 54 Years Vill. Kolam, P.O. Kolam, Tah. And P.S. Tamnar, Dist. Raigarh C.G.496107, District : Raigarh, Chhattisgarh

¶21

---- Petitioners

¶22

Versus

¶23

State of Chhattisgarh through Secretary, Department of Industries, Government of Chhattisgarh, DKS Bhavan, Raipur, Post Office Raipur, Tahsil & PS Raipur, Dist. Raipur (CG) PIN 496001.

¶24

Collector Raigarh Post Office Raigarh, Tahsil and PS Raigarh, District Raigarh C.G., PIN 496112 (CG).

¶25

Sub Divisional Officer R/land Acquisition Officer Gharghoda, P.S. Gharghoda, Tah. And P.S. Gharghoda, Dist. Raigarh C.G., District : Raigarh, Chhattisgarh PIN 496111

¶26

General Manager Dist. Trade And Industries Centre, Raigarh PS. Andtah . Raigarh Dist. Raigarh C.G., District : Raigarh, Chhattisgarh PIN 496112

¶27

Tahsildar Tamnar P.O. Tamnar Tah And P.S. Tamnar Dist. Raigarh C.G., District : Raigarh, Chhattisgarh PIN 496111

¶28

Sarda Energy And Minerals Ltd. 2nd Flr Vanijya Square, Raipur P.O. Raipur Tah. And P.S. Raipur Dist. Raipur C.G., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 496001.

¶29

---- Respondents

¶30

For petitioner	: Mr. Manoj Kumar Sinha, Advocate.
For Respondent/State	: Mrs. Hamida Siddiqui, Dy.A.G.
For respondent No.6	: Mr. Amrito Das, Advocate.

¶31

Hon'ble Shri Justice Narendra Kumar Vyas.

Order on Board

(01-08-2023)

Heard on I.A.No.4 of 2023, which is an application for amendment in the petition.

¶36

On due consideration, I.A.No.4 of 2023 is allowed and the learned counsel for the petitioners is directed to amend the writ petition during the course of the day.

¶37

Also heard on I.A,.No. 6 of 2023, which is an application for bringing LRs of deceased petitioners No. 1 to 4 who died in the year 2018.

¶38

On due consideration and for the reasons stated in the application I.A,No. 6 of 2023 is allowed and petitioners are permitted to bring LRs of the deceased petitioners No.1 to 4 on record during the course of the day.

¶39

¶40

With consent of the parties, the matter is heard finally.

¶41

The case of the petitioners, in brief, is that the petitioners are land owners whose land was acquired by the respondent No.1/State of Chattisgarh for industrial purpose as per notification dated 30-92011 (Annexure P/5) situated at Gram Panchayat Kolam, Tahsil Tamnar, District Raigarh as per notification issued under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, “The Act, 1894”) on 30-92011 for acquiring the land bearing Patwari Halka No. 32, situated at Kolam, Tahsil Tamnar. The petitioners raised objection on 21.10.2011 about acquiring the land contended that it is an agricultural land and their livelihood is dependable upon these lands. It has also been contended that he has already raised an objection and there is no declaration about application of rehabilitation policy. Thereafter the land acquisition officer/respondent No. 3 started the land acquisition proceeding and passed the award on 09.07.2012.

¶42

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would submit that action of the respondent authorities is illegal as the petitioners are the recorded owners of the land mentioned above and they are not agreed to give the land for the industrial purpose and issuance of notification under Section 4(1) of the Act, 1894 is illegal, therefore,

¶43

¶44

initiation of land acquisition proceeding is bad-in-law and even the award passed by the Land Acquisition Officer on 9-7-2012 is also bad-in-law as it has not calculated the compensation in accordance with the law. He would further submit that the agricultural land has been acquired and the farmers are deprived of their livelihood, therefore, the Land Acquisition proceedings illegal and same deserves to be quashed. He would further submit that the land was acquired for private purpose as the land was acquired for respondent No. 6. In view of above factual matrix, the petitioners have filed the instant writ petition challenging the award dated 09.07.2012 as well as the proceeding for land acquisition.

¶45

On the other hand, learned State counsel would submit that the writ petition is not maintainable and since award has been made the petitioners have remedy challenging the award by making reference under Section 18 of the Act, 1894, where they can raise all the points which are available to them, thus, the writ petition is not maintainable.

¶46

During pendency of the writ petition, respondent No.6 Sarda Energy & Minerals Ltd. for whom the land was acquired, has withdrawn the industrial purpose and the amount which was deposited before CSIDC for payment of compensation, has already been disbursed to them. Thus, the respondent No.6 has no more interested for the land acquisition. Considering this aspect of the matter, Mr. Manoj Kumar Sinha, learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that since respondent No. 6 has already withdrawn their proposal in set up the industrial unit and they have shown disinterest to continue with the land acquisition proceedings, therefore, the present writ petition may be disposed of granting liberty to them that if the Government intends to acquire the land for industrial purpose, proceedings may be conducted afresh.

¶47

This was vehemently objected by the learned State counsel. Learned State counsel would draw attention of this court towards the document (Annexure P/1) wherein it has been categorically observed

¶48

¶49

that the land is acquired for CSIDC for developing the industrial center which is a public purpose, as such it cannot be said that the land was acquired for private purpose and for establishment of industrial unit by respondent No. 6, therefore, the aforestated contentions raised by the petitioners may be rejected.

¶50

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

¶51

From bare perusal of the document (Annexure P/1) i t is quite vivid that the land was acquired for Chhattisgarh State Industrial Development Corporation (CSIDC) which is the Government Corporation and has been established with an object of developing industrial centre, therefore, the land has to be acquired by the CSIDC, thereafter, subsequent it can be given to other private entity, as such it cannot be said that the land was acquired for private purpose by the CSIDC, as such the purpose of acquiring the land still exists, therefore, submission raised by learned counsel for the petitioners that the purpose of the land acquisition is over and it cannot be considered and accordingly it is rejected.

¶52

Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the petitioners may be given liberty to challenge the quantum of the award as while passing the award, the land acquisition officer has not considered the constructions attached with the land, trees planted in the land and has given less compensation before the appropriate forum as provided under Section 18 of the Act, 1984. He would further submit that the award was passed on 09.07.2012 and the writ petition was filed before this Court on 14.10.2012.

¶53

He would further submit that the Hon’ble Supreme ‘Court in the case of Manharlal Shivlal Panchal & others vs. The Deputy Collector & Special land Acquisition Officer & Others, in Civil Appeal No 9004 of 2022 decided on 12-12-2022 has considered the issue of limitation and he would further submit that as per Section 18 of the Act, 1894, the limitation for making reference is six months from the

¶54

¶55

date of award and the writ petition was filed before this Court on 14.10.2012 which is according to him in a wrong forum therefore, he may be granted benefit of Section 14 of the Limitation Act.

¶56

On the other hand, learned State counsel would submit that the period of six months has already lapsed and the petitioners have voluntarily chosen the wrong forum, therefore, they are not entitled to get advantage of Section 14 of the Limitation Act.

¶57

For better understanding, the issue crop up in this petition, it is expedient of this Court to extract Section 18 of the Act, 1894 and Section 14 of the Limitation Act, which are as under:-

¶58

“Section 18 of the Act, 1894- (1) Any person interested who has not accepted the award may, by written application to the Collector, require that the matter be referred by the Collector for the determination of the Court, whether his objection be to the measurement of the land, the amount of the compensation, the persons to whom it is payable, or the apportionment of the compensation among the persons interested.

¶59

(2) The application shall state the grounds on which objection to the award is taken: Provided that every such application shall be made-

¶60

(a) if the person making it was present or represented before the Collector at the time when he made his award, within six weeks from the date of the Collector's award;

¶61

(b) in other cases, within six weeks of the receipt of the notice from the Collector under section 12, subsection (2), or within six months from the date of the Collector's award, whichever period shall first expire”

¶62

Section 14 of Limitation Act-Exclusion of time of proceeding bona fide in court without jurisdiction. — (1) In computing the period of limitation for any suit the time during which the plaintiff has been prosecuting with due diligence another civil proceeding, whether in a court of first instance or of appeal or revision, against the defendant shall be excluded, where the proceeding relates to the same matter in issue and is prosecuted in good faith in a court which, from

¶63

¶64

defect of jurisdiction or other cause of a like nature, is unable to entertain it.

¶65

(2) In computing the period of limitation for any application, the time during which the applicant has been prosecuting with due diligence another civil proceeding, whether in a court of first instance or of appeal or revision, against the same party for the same relief shall be excluded, where such proceeding is prosecuted in good faith in a court which, from defect of jurisdiction or other cause of a like nature, is unable to entertain it.

¶66

(3) Notwithstanding anything contained in rule 2 of Order XXIII of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (5 of 1908), the provisions of sub-section (1) shall apply in relation to a fresh suit instituted on permission granted by the court under rule 1 of that Order where such permission is granted on the ground that the first suit must fail by reason of a defect in the jurisdiction of the court or other cause of a like nature.

¶67

Explanation.— For the purposes of this section,—

¶68

(a) in excluding the time during which a former civil proceeding was pending, the day on which that proceeding was instituted and the day on which it ended shall both be counted;

¶69

(b) a plaintiff or an applicant resisting an appeal shall be deemed to be prosecuting a proceeding;

¶70

(c) misjoinder of parties or of causes of action shall be deemed to be a cause of a like nature with defect of jurisdiction.”

¶71

Considering the above provision of the Act, 1894, it is quite vivid that reference under Section 18 cannot be made beyond six months as Section 5 of the Limitation Act is not applicable in the land acquisition proceeding, but benefit of Section 14 of the Limitation Act can be extended as the award was challenged before this Court by filing writ petition on 14-10-2012 whereas the award was passed on 09-7-2012 ie., within six months within limitation as provided under Section 14 of the Limitation Act.

¶72

In the light of the above legal position, this Court has to examine whether the petitioners can be extended the benefit of pendency of

¶73

¶74

the writ petition or not in the light of Section 14 of the Limitation Act. This issue has been considered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Manharlal Shivlal Panchal & others (supra) wherein Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed in para 7, 8 and 9 which read as under.

¶75

“7. The reference under Section 18 of the Act, 1894 has been dismissed as barred by limitation having been filed beyond the period of six months, specified in Section 18(2) of the Act, 1894. The same has been confirmed by the High Court. However, it is required to be noted that the respective appellants – original landowners, as such, challenged the acquisition proceedings as well as the award under Section 12(2) of the Act, 1894, which ended in dismissal of the special leave petition by this Court vide order dated 11.4.2013. The reference applications were filed on 1.7.2013. At this stage, it is required to be noted that though in the writ petition being SCA No. 1428/2012, the award under Section 12(2) of the Act was challenged on the ground of inadequacy of the amount of compensation and though the Division Bench of the High Court dismissed the said writ petition, however thereafter reserved liberty in favour of the appellants – original landowners to pursue such remedy as may be available to them for enhancement of compensation or any other relief to which they may be legally entitled. In view of that liberty, the appellants – original landowners thereafter and after dismissal of the special leave petition by this Court filed reference. Therefore, in view of the liberty reserved by the High Court in favour of the appellants to pursue such remedy as may be available to them for enhancement of compensation, the reference application could not have been dismissed as barred by limitation under Section 18(2) of the Act, 1894. Within a period of six months from the date of dismissal of the special leave petition, the reference was filed. In the special leave petition, which was dismissed by this Court on 11.4.2013, the original landowners whose valuable lands had been acquired challenged the acquisition proceedings. At this stage, it is required to be noted that though in the writ petition before the High Court (in the earlier round of litigation) they challenged the award under Section 12(2) of the Act and the High Court observed that it is too late to make any grievance, still the High Court while dismissing the writ

¶76

¶77

petition reserved liberty in favour of the appellants to initiate appropriate proceedings for enhancement of the compensation.

¶78

8. As such, on a fair reading of the entire judgment and order passed by the High Court, the observations made that it is too late to make the grievance with respect to the inadequacy of the compensation, those observations are to be read while considering the prayer of the appellants challenging the acquisition proceedings. It appears that the acquisition was also challenged on the ground that the amount awarded is inadequate. To that, the observations were made by the High Court that it is too late to raise such a dispute. Therefore, the High Court ought to have interfered with the decision of the reference Court dismissing the reference on the ground of limitation and ought to have remitted the matter to the reference Court to decide the reference on merits.

¶79

9. Now so far as the reliance placed upon the decisions of this Court in the cases of Shah Manilal Chandulal (supra) and Mahadeo Bajirao Patil (supra) are concerned, there cannot be any dispute on the proposition of law laid down by this Court that the limitation for making reference under Section 18 of the Act, 1894 cannot be extended and that Section 5 of the Limitation Act shall not be applicable. However, in the present case, it is not the case of condoning the delay in exercise of powers under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. As observed hereinabove, in the present case, the appellants challenged the acquisition proceedings which ended on the dismissal of the special leave petition by this Court vide order dated 11.4.2013 and thereafter pursuant to the liberty reserved by the High Court, reserved while dismissing Writ Petition No. 1428/2012, within a period of six months from the date of dismissal of the special leave petition, i.e., on 1.7.2013, the original landowners filed reference application under Section 18 of the Act, 1894. In the aforesaid two decisions before this Court, there were no such facts. Therefore, on facts, the aforesaid two decisions shall not be applicable to the facts of the case on hand”.

¶80

In the light of the aforesaid legal position, it is quite vivid that when the proceeding is pending before this court and since the disputed facts are required for determination of facts whether compensation as assessed by the land acquisition officer is justified or not, which

¶81

¶82

cannot be examined by this Court. Therefore, considering this aspect of the matter and also considering the fact that the petition is pending before this court from 14-10-2012 and no objection with regard to alternate remedy of making reference was raised before which was taken for the first time and law on this subject, it is directed that the petitioners shall make an application before the Collector for referring the matter before the Court having jurisdiction along with all the documents within two months from the date of receipt of copy of this order. The Reference Court shall not insist for delay in deciding the case and the respondents shall also not take any plea of limitation. The reference court shall decide the case on its merits, in accordance with evidence and material available on record during proceedings. The petitioners are at liberty to raise all the points before the Reference Court.

¶83

With the aforesaid observation and direction, the writ petition is disposed of.

¶84

SD/( Narendra Kumar Vyas) JUDGE

¶85

Raju

Padmawati (Died) Through Lrs. v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Padmawati (Died) Through Lrs. 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

Madan Lal Kshatriya Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Dharamchand Sahu Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Ankit Soni Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Sumit Gandecha Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Sadan Chandra Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Ajesh Kushwaha Vs State of Chhattisgarh