Bharat Bhushan Sahu and Anr. Vs State Govt. Of Chhattisgarh and Ors.

¶1

1 / 4

¶2

Digitally signed by GOPAL SINGH Date: 2024.11.05 17:12:47 +0530

¶3

2024:CGHC:42748

¶4

NAFR

¶5

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶6

WPC No. 1413 of 2013

¶7

1 - Bharat Bhushan Sahu S/o Lt. Heera Singh Sahu, Aged About 68 Years, R/o Village And Post Bhardakala, Tahsil Gunderdehi (Distt. Durg) Now Distt. Balod, C.G., P.S. Arjunda, Chhattisgarh 2 - Kranti Bhushan Sahu S/o Bharat Bhushan Sahu, Aged About 45 Years, R/o Village And Post Bhardakala, Tahsil Gunderdehi (Distt. Durg) Now Distt. Balod, C.G., P.S. Arjunda, District : Balod, Chhattisgarh

¶8

... Petitioners

¶9

versus

¶10

1 - State Govt. of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Rajaswa And Apada Prabhandhan Department Ministry, DKS Bhawan, Raipur C.G., P.S. Rakhi, Raipur, Chhattisgarh

¶11

2 – Collector, (Durg C.G.) Now Balod, C.G., P.S. City Kotwali, Balod, C.G.

¶12

3 - Sub Divisional Officer, Rajaswa And Bhu Arjan Adhikari (Patan Durg) Now Gunderdehi, Distt. Balod, C.G., P.S. Gunderdehi, 4 - Executive Engineer, Kharkhara Mohandi Pat Pariyojna No.4 Mohandi Pat Pariyojana Sambhag, Durg, C.G., P.S. City Kotwali, Durg

¶13

... Respondents (Cause-title is taken from Case Information System)

¶14

2 / 4

¶15

For Petitioners : Shri Viprasen Agrawal, Advocate For Respondents/State : Ms. Raashi Tiwari, Panel Lawyer

¶16

Hon’ble Shri Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad

¶17

Order on Board

¶18

4.11.2024

¶19

1. The Petitioners are aggrieved against non-payment of appropriate amount of compensation for the land acquired from them. According to them, they have not yet received the amount of compensation as calculated by the Land Acquisition Officer. In this respect, they had made an application on 29.6.2007 for reconsideration of amount of compensation before the Land Acquisition Officer-cum-Sub-Divisional Officer, Patan, District Durg. However, the said application was dismissed on 28.11.2007. Being aggrieved by the said order of dismissal passed by the Land Acquisition Officer-cum-Sub-Divisional Officer, Patan, the instant writ petition has been preferred.

¶20

2. Learned Panel Lawyer appearing for the Respondents/State has objected to this petition on the ground that the petition has been filed at a very belated stage and further since the land has been acquired and award has been passed and as such even thereafter if the Petitioners have any grievance in respect of the amount of compensation, they should file an application under

¶21

3 / 4

¶22

Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 before the Collector. But, in spite of filing of an application before the Collector, they have moved an application before the Land Acquisition Officercum-Sub-Divisional Officer, Patan, which is not in accordance with law.

¶23

3. Facing this situation, Learned Counsel for the Petitioners submits that the Petitioners may be permitted to file an application before the Collector for consideration of enhancement of the amount of compensation against the land already acquired from them by the State Government. It is also prayed that since the Petitioners had filed application before the Sub-Divisional Officer way back on 29.6.2007 after passing of the award dated 23.1.2007 as such the concerned Collector may be directed to consider their application keeping in mind that they had filed an application before the Sub-Divisional Officer on 29.6.2007 and after dismissal of the said application on 28.11.2007 they have approached this Court by filing the instant petition way back on 10.9.2013. The Petitioners have based their instant petition on the ground of spot inspection report dated 31.12.2008 in which it was found that the land in question is an agricultural land, but, the award was not passed on the basis of agricultural land and meager amount was calculated and as such the Petitioners have not obtained the same.

¶24

4 / 4

¶25

4. Considering the over-all submissions put-forth and the documents annexed with the writ petition, it would be appropriate to direct the Collector to consider the application of the Petitioners to be filed under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and the said application may be considered on merits keeping in view that earlier application had been filed before the Land Acquisition Officer-cum-Sub-Divisional Officer way back on 29.6.2007 and thereafter the instant writ petition remained pending since 10.9.2013. Ordered accordingly.

¶26

5. Accordingly, with the aforesaid direction, the writ petition is hereby disposed of. No order as to cost.

¶27

Sd/-

¶28

( Amitendra Kishore Prasad ) JUDGE

¶29

Gopal

Bharat Bhushan Sahu and Anr. v. State Govt. Of Chhattisgarh and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bharat Bhushan Sahu and Anr. v. State Govt. 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

Janpad Panchayat Nagri Vs State Of Chhattisgarh And Ors.

Smt.pushpa Jain Vs State Of Chhattisgarh And Ors.

Branch Manager, New India Assurance Co.ltd. Vs Harinarayan Shukla

Mohammad Ghulam Hussain Memon Vs State Of Chhattisgarh And Ors.

M/s Excel Dealcomm Pvt.ltd. Vs M/s Uniworth Textiles Limited And Anr.

Abhishek Jaiswal Vs Bharat Petroleum Corporation and Ors.