Dismissed¶39

Vikas Agrawal v. State Of Chhattisgarh And Ors.

Chhattisgarh HC24 Nov 2024WPC/1312/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Keywords: Kelo Dam Project; Land Acquisition Case No. 22/A-82/06-07; Khasra No. 202/2, area 0.483 hectare, village Lakha, Tahsil & District Raigarh; award dated 13.07.2009 in favour of Tirath Das; impugned order dated 09.05.2013 by SDO (Revenue) cum Land Acquisition Officer, Raigarh; Sections 9 and 18, Land Acquisition Act 1894; Article 226, Constitution of India; maintainability and alternative statutory remedy; liberty to seek reference under Section 18; compensation with interest @18% per year claimed but not adjudicated; writ petition dismissed.

What did the court decide?

Liberty granted to the petitioner to file an appropriate application under Section 18 of the Act, 1894 for redressal of his grievances; respondent authorities to consider and decide the same expeditiously in accordance with law. ¶39

Vikas Agrawal Vs State Of Chhattisgarh And Ors. — Land Acquisition | Chhattisgarh HC (2024)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶39

Issue for consideration

Whether the writ petition is maintainable when the petitioner, aggrieved by an award made in favour of another person, has filed neither an objection under Section 9 nor an application under Section 18 of the Act, 1894, and an alternative statutory remedy under Section 18 remains available to him. +1 more

¶28

Court's answer

An actual owner aggrieved by and dissatisfied with an award passed in favour of any other person is required to approach the Collector by filing an application under Section 18 of the Act, 1894 for reference of the matter.

¶37

Ratio / Principle

Since the petitioner did not file the Section 18 application, the instant writ petition is liable to be and is dismissed on that ground alone.

¶37

Key takeaways

The petitioner, claiming to be owner of the subject property, is granted liberty to file an appropriate application under Section 18 of the Act, 1894 for redressal of his grievances, and the respondent authorities shall consider and decide it expeditiously in accordance with law, having regard to the award passed on 13.07.2009 and the pendency of the writ petition for more than ten years.ratio¶38

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Chhattisgarh High Court (Bilaspur), WPC No. 1312 of 2013, decided 25/11/2024 by Amitendra Kishore Prasad, J. — Petitioner, purchaser of Khasra No. 202/2 (0.483 hectare), village Lakha, Raigarh, from respondent No. 5 by registered sale deed dated 21st July, 2004, challenged the impugned order dated 09.05.2013 of the SDO (Revenue) cum Land Acquisition Officer, Raigarh, because compensation for acquisition of the land for the Kelo Dam Project (Land Acquisition Case No. 22/A-82/06-07) had been awarded to respondent No. 5 – Tirath Das vide award dated 13.07.2009 despite the petitioner being registered owner and possession holder; he sought the entire compensation with benefits and interest @18% per year. Observing that an aggrieved actual owner dissatisfied with an award made in favour of another person must seek reference by applying to the Collector under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, and noting that the petitioner had filed neither a Section 9 objection nor a Section 18 application, the single-Judge bench dismissed the writ petition on that ground alone, granting him liberty to file an appropriate Section 18 application, to be considered and decided expeditiously by the respondent authorities in accordance with law.

1 / 4

2024:CGHC:46191

NAFR

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶5

WPC No. 1312 of 2013

¶6

1 - Vikas Agrawal S/o Mahadeo Prasad Agrawal Aged About 33 Years R/o Old Sadar Bazar, P.O. Raigarh P.S. City Kotwali Raigarh Tahsil Raigarh Civil And Revenue Distt. Raigarh C.G. , Chhattisgarh

¶7

... Petitioner

¶8

versus

¶9

1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Its Secretary Revenue Deptt. Mantralaya, Mahanadi Gate Naya Raipur Capital Complex P.O. Head Post OfÏce Raipur P.S. Telibandha, Raipur, Tahsi, Chhattisgarh.

¶10

2 - Collector Raigarh P.O. Raigarh, P.S. City Kotwali Raigarh Tahsil Raigarh, Civil And Revenue Distt. Raigarh, C.G.

¶11

3 - Land Acquisition OfÏcer Sub Div. OfÏcer Raigarh P.O. Raigarh P.S. City Kotwali Raigarh, Tah. Raigarh Civil And Revenue Distt. Raigarh C.G.

¶12

4 - The Executive OfÏcer Kelo Dam Project Survey Division Raigah, P.O. Raigarh P. S. City Kotwali Raigarh, Tahsil Raigarh, Civil And Revenue Distt. Raigarh C.G.

¶13

5 - Tirath Das S/o Garib Das Aged About 60 Years R/o Village Lakha, P.O. Raigarh P.S. City Kotwali Raigarh, Tahsil Raigarh, Civil And Revenue Distt. Raigarh C.G.

¶14

6 - Uco Bank Branch Brajrajnagar, Po, p.S. And Tahsil Brajrajnagar, Civil And Revenue Distt. Jharsuguda, Odisha.

¶15

... Respondents

¶16

2 / 4

¶17

For Petitioner : Mr Rajkamal Singh alongwith Mr. Surya Pratap Yudhveer Singh, Advocate.

¶18

For Res. Nos. 1 to 3 / State: Mr. S.S. Baghel, Dy. Govt. Advocate. For Respondent No. 5 : Mr. N.K. Malviya, Advocate

¶19

Hon'ble Mr. Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Order on Board

¶20

25/11/2024

¶21

1. Instant writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioner, seeking following reliefs :-

¶22

“10.1 This hon'ble court may pleased be kind enough in calling the records of the case related with impugned order.

¶23

10.2 This hon'ble Court may please be kind enough in quashing and setting aside the order impugned dated 09.05.2013 (Annexure P-1) and thereby to please be kind enough in directing the resp. no. 1 to pay the entire amount of compensation & all other benefits alongwith interest @18% per year to petitioner in respect of acquisition of his land bearing Khasra No. 202/2, Area 0.483 Hectares situated in village : Lakha, Block,Tahsil & District : Raigarh, C.G. in Land Acquisition Case No. 22/A-82/06-07 of the Land Acquisition OfÏcer, Raigarh in respect of “Kelo Dam Project”.

¶24

10.3 The costs, compensation and any other relief, as may be deemed fit by this hon'ble Court may please also be allowed and granted to the petitioner.”

¶25

2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that petitioner is owner of the diverted land bearing Khasra No. 202/2, area 0.483 hectare situated at village Lakha, Tahsil & District Raipur, which he has purchased from respondent No. 5 vide registered sale deed dated 21^st July, 2004 (Annexure P-2). However, upon acquisition of the petitioner's land for the purpose of Kelo Dam Project in Land Acquisition Case No. 22/A-82/06-07, the compensation was calculated and the same was awarded in favour of respondent No 5- Tirath Das vide award dated 13-7-2009, inspite of the fact that petitioner is registered owner and possession holder of the aforesaid land.

¶26

3 / 4

¶27

He specifically pleaded in paragraph 8.8. of the writ petition that matter ought to have been referred under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (henceforth “Act, 1894”), but inspite of the specific averment made in the writ petition, respondent authorities have failed to do so.

¶28

3. Per contra, counsel for respondents No. 1 to 3/State while opposing the submission made by counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has not filed any objection under Section 9 of the Act, 1894, despite that he was required to file an application under Section 18 of the Act, 1894, which he has not filed. He further submits that there is alternative statutory remedy available to the petitioner under Section 18 of the Act, 1894, which he did not avail, as such, instant writ petition, as framed & filed, is not maintainable.

¶29

4. Learned counsel appearing for respondent No. 5 would submit that the impugned order dated 09.05.2013 passed the SDO (Revenue) cum Land Acquisition OfÏcer, Raigarh is well meritted order, which does not call for any interference in the instant petition, as such, compensation has rightly been awarded to respondent No. 5.

¶30

5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record.

¶31

6. At this stage, it would appropriate to notice the provisions contained in Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, which reproduced below :- “18. Reference to Court

¶32

(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.

¶33

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

¶34

4 / 4

¶35

(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 Collectors award;

¶36

(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 Collectors award, whichever period shall first expire.”

¶37

7. A bare perusal of the provisions contained in Section 18 of the Act, 1894, it is quite clear that if the petitioner is aggrieved & dissatisfied with the amount of award passed in favor of any other person, then the petitioner, who is actual owner of the subject land, should have approached before the Collector by filing an application under Section 18 of the Act, 1894 for referring the matter, however, the same has not been filed, as such, the instant petition is liable to be and is hereby dismissed on this ground alone.

¶38

8. However, since the petitioner is claiming to be the owner of the subject property, he is granted liberty to file appropriate application under Section 18 of the Act, 1894 for redressal of his grievances and, in turn, the respondents authorities shall consider and decide the same expeditiously keeping in view the fact that award has been passed way back on 13.07.2009 and the instant writ petition is lying pending before this Court since more than 10 years, thus, looking to the pendency of the writ petition, the reference petition may be considered and decided expeditiously in accordance with law.

¶39

9. With the aforesaid observations & directions, the writ petition is dismissed.

¶40

Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad)

¶41

JUDGE

¶42

amita

¶43

Digitally signed by AMITA DUBEY Date: 2024.12.07 15:35:14 +0530

Vikas Agrawal v. State Of Chhattisgarh And Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vikas Agrawal v. State Of Chhattisgarh And Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Bharat Singh Gond and Ors. Vs State of Chhattisgarh and Ors.

Sanjay Das Vs State Of Chhattisgarh and Ors.

Sunil Yadav Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Uday Ram Vs State of Chhattisgarh and Ors.

B.K. Jha Vs Coal India Limited

Girish Kumar Kuldeep Vs State of Chhattisgarh