Dismissed

State of Chhattisgarh v. Kamlesh Singh

Chhattisgarh HC9 Apr 2024REVP/37/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Chhattisgarh dismissed the State's review petition filed against an order directing payment of compensation for land acquired without due process. The Court held that review cannot substitute an appeal and there was no manifest error on the record to justify review.

What did the court decide?

The review petition filed by the State is dismissed for want of substratum.

State of Chhattisgarh Vs Kamlesh Singh — Land Acquisition | Chhattisgarh HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

NAFR

¶3

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

¶4

REVP No. 37 of 2023

¶5

State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Department Of Revenue, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh

¶6

The Collector District Janjgir Champa, Chhattisgarh.

¶7

The Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue) Pamgarh, District Janjgir Champa, Chhattisgarh

¶8

Executive Engineer Rural Development Division, Chhattisgarh Rural Road Development Agency, Janjgir Champa (C.G.)

¶9

---- Applicants

¶10

Versus

¶11

Kamlesh Singh S/o Late Raja Bhaya Singh Aged About 67 Years R/o Kera Road, Janjgir, District : Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh

¶12

---- Respondent

¶13

For Applicants/State : Shri R.K. Gupta, Addl. A.G. For Respondent : Shri Manish Nigam, Advocate

¶14

Hon'ble Shri Justice Goutam Bhaduri

Order on Board

10/04/2024

Heard.

The instant review petition has been filed against the order dated 27/01/2021 in WPC No.307 of 2021, wherein the following order was passed:-

¶19

¶20

1. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the land of the petitioner bearing Khasra No.108/1 situated at village Kosa was acquired without their being any lawful acquisition of land for construction of the road.

¶21

2. Learned counsel for the State would submit that the order has already been passed for payment of compensation to the petitioner as per Annexure P-6.

¶22

3. In view of such submission, it is directed that the respondent authorities may draw the necessary proceedings under the Land Acquisition Act so that the suitable compensation can be awarded to the petitioner in accordance with law within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶23

4. With the aforesaid observation, the petition stands disposed off.

¶24

Earlier a writ appeal bearing WA No.421 of 2022 was filed by the State against the aforesaid order dated 27/01/2021 but the same was disposed of reserving liberty to the State (appellants therein) to file a review petition.

¶25

Brief facts of the case are that a writ petition bearing WPC No.307 of 2021 was filed by the petitioner Kamlesh Singh that he is the owner of the land bearing Khasra No.108/1 at village Kosa, P.H. No.2, District Janjgir-Champa and the respondent authority without any acquisition of the land, constructed the road on his land without awarding any compensation. Consequently, the adequate compensation be given to the petitioner.

¶26

The instant review petition has been filed by the State and it has been contended that the said order was passed on the first hearing and earlier to that wherein the road is constructed, the same land was being used by

¶27

¶28

the villagers and the writ petitioner deliberately allowed and prompted the State authorities to construct the road and allowed the construction to happen to take a hefty compensation and consequently after construction of the road he started communication. According to the submission, the writ petitioner should have objected the construction of the road on his land, but having not done subsequently filed the writ petition wherein the order is passed, therefore, the order is required to be reviewed.

¶29

Perusal of the order would show that the grievance of the writ petitioner who filed WPC No.307 of 2021 is that certain roads have been constructed over the land of the writ petitioner and it was the submission of the State as per the document Annexure P/6 that the State has already passed an order for payment of compensation to the writ petitioner. Perusal of Annexure P/6 to the WPC would show that it was written by the Joint Secretary on 21^st of September, 2020 which was on the basis of a representation made by the writ petitioner dated 04/08/2020 and the copy was also forwarded to the different authorities. The perusal of the original writ petition also shows that it contains a demarcation report dated 04/08/2020 Annexure P/4 whereby the fact was affirmed that the construction of the road has been made over the land of the petitioner.

¶30

The submission of the State to review the order appears to be completely misconceived as against Article 300A of the Constitution of India. On a specific query being made as to whether any enquiry or any

¶31

¶32

proceeding has been drawn against the erring officers, as according to the State the said officers deliberately with hand in gloves with the writ petitioner constructed the road over the land of the petitioner, it is submitted that no enquiry was conducted. If the State in its exercise of power to construct the road on some one others land, which has not been acquired, it is not expected if it is not objected by the land owner, he would be deprived to get the compensation and would be barred under the doctrine of estoppel.

¶33

Article 300 A of the Constitution of India, specifically provides that no person shall be deprived of his property save by authority of law, the authority of law only leads to acquire a private land and the answer is the acquisition through legal process. In the present case admittedly no acquisition has been made. Consequently, on the date of first date of hearing on the submission of the State which was based on letter Annexure P/6, wherein it was highlighted that the State has agreed to pay the compensation, the said order was passed. In exercise of review jurisdiction this Court sans power unless the mistake is apparent on the face of record. There is no other ground pointed out by the review petitioner showing any manifest error on the record. It is well settled principle of law that the review proceedings are not by way of an appeal and have to be strictly confined to the scope and ambit of Order 47 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

¶34

It appears that the petitioner by presentation of this review petition seeks an opportunity to argue the entire case afresh on merits under the

¶35

¶36

garb of the review petition, which is not permissible and tenable in law.

¶37

It is trite law that under the garb of review petition, the petitioner should not be permitted to argue the entire case afresh, which would amount to convert the review petition into an appeal and the same is not sustainable in law. {See: Meera Bhanjan v. Smt. Nirmal Kumar Chowdhary, AIR 1995 SC 455, Lily Thomas etc. v. Union of India and others, AIR 2000 SC 1650, Ajit Kumar Rath v. State of Orissa and others, AIR 2000 SC 85, Government of T.N. & Others v. M. Ananchu Asari and others, (2005) 2 SCC 332, and Kerla State Electricity Board v. Hitech Electrothermicsm & Hydropower Ltd. and others, (2005) 6 SCC 651} .

¶38

As a sequel, the review petition, sans substratum is liable to be and is hereby dismissed

¶39

SD/-SD/- SD/Goutam Bhaduri Judge

¶40

Ashu

State of Chhattisgarh v. Kamlesh Singh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State of Chhattisgarh v. Kamlesh Singh

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

Karan Singh and Ors. Vs State Of Chhattisgarh and Ors.

Indal Singh Sidar Vs The State Of ChhattisgaRH and Ors.

Kadir Ansari Vs State Of Chhattisgarh and Ors.

Anirudha Banjari Vs Vivekanand Bhivgade

Smt. Chandrika Bai Vs The State Of Chhattisgarh and Ors.

Jitendra Kumar Chandrakar Vs State Of Chhattisgarh And Ors.