Manohar Lal Jeswani (Died Through Lrs) Vs State Of Chhattisgarh

¶1

1

¶2

2024:CGHC:43826

¶3

NAFR

¶4

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶5

WPC No. 1474 of 2015

¶6

1 - Manohar Lal Jeswani (Died Through Lrs) As Per Honble Court Order Dated:20/08/2024.

¶7

1.1 - (A) Smt. Rakhi Jeswani W/o Late Manohar Lal Jeswani Aged About 59 Years R/o Raipur Naka, Sindhi Colony, Police Station Mohan Nagar,Durg,District:Durg,Chhattisgarh

¶8

2 - Tirathdas Jeswani, S/o Shri Giddumal Jeswani, Aged About 47 Years Resident Of Gurunanak Nagar, Police Station - Mohan Nagar, Durg, District- Durg Chhattisgarh, District : Durg, Chhattisgarh

¶9

... Petitioners

¶10

versus

¶11

State of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of Urban Administration And Development Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Naya Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh.

¶12

The Collector, Durg, District Durg Chhattisgarh.

¶13

The Sub-Divisional Officer Revenue/Land Acquisition Officer, Durg, District Durg Chhattisgarh.

¶14

2

¶15

The Municipal Corporation Durg, Through The Commissioner,

¶16

District Durg Chhattisgarh.

¶17

... Respondents

¶18

For Petitioners	: Mr. Prateek Sharma, Advocate.
For Respondents/State	: Mr. Ankur Kashyap, Dy. G.A.
For Respondent No.4	: Mr. SandeepDubey, Advocate.

¶19

Hon'ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru, J Order on Board

¶20

11/11/2024

¶21

By this present writ petition, the petitioner, who is claiming himself as land owner of land bearing of Khasra No.48/48 ad-measuring 3252 sp.ft situated at Patwari Halka Nagar, Sindhyanagar, Katulbod, Tehsil and District Durg, seekirng following relief:-

¶22

“10.1. this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to

¶23

direct the respondents to hand over the vacant possession of the land of the petitioners bearing Khasra no. 48/48, measuring 3252 square feet situated Patwari Halka no. 15, Sindhyanagar, Katulbod at Tahsil & District Durg, by removing the concrete cement road and to pay compensation to the petitioners for the period they were illegally deprived for using their own land

¶24

OR

¶25

In alternate, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent to pay adequate

¶26

3

¶27

compensation to the petitioners, as per the rate prescribed by the Collector Guideline for the year 2015, for entire 3252 square feet land of the petitioners, applying provisions of the Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, within stipulated period.

¶28

10.2 this Hon'ble Court be pleased to direct the respondent state for conducting an inquiry to find out the responsibility for illegal construction of concrete cement road upon aforementioned land of the petitioners and take proper action in accordance with law.

¶29

10.3 any other relief, which this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper, may also kindly be granted to the petitioners, in the interest of justice.”

¶30

(i) The petitioner contended in the writ petition that he had purchased the land as stated above by registered sale deed dated 25/11/1985 from one Satya Prakash Sahu. After purchasing the same, the mutation proceeding was drawn and the land mutated in the name of the petitioner in the revenue record and they were in peaceful possession of the land in question. When the petitioners went to see the land in January, 2013, they found that the concrete cement road has been constructed upon the land of the petitioner without any notice or information. The land was

¶31

4

¶32

purchased by the petitioner for construction of the house. When the concrete road was constructed in an illegal manner from 04/02/2013, initiative to start proceeding of acquisition of the said land were started but no compensation was paid to the petitioner. The petitioner submitted that as no compensation was paid, the petitioner approached the authorities and submitted a representation and application before the respondents authorities. (ii) On the basis of application filed by the petitioner, a demarcation and spot inspection was conducted, where it was found that out of 3252 sp.ft of land, 2597 sp.ft land has already been used by the Municipal Corporation and constructed concrete road over the said land of the petitioner. The petitioner submitted a copy of demarcation and copy of spot inspection report as Annexure P-3. Even the compensation was also calculated by assessing the said compensation to Rs. 31,90,986/- by the respondent corporation on their own and send the same to respondent No.1 for necessary action on 07/05/2013. The same was intimated to the petitioner under the Right to Information Act and stated that they have sent a proposal for land acquisition. It has been intimated by the Municipal Corporation to the petitioner that they have assessed amount to Rs. 31,90,986/- and send it to the Land Acquisition Officer for acquisition of the land in question vide Communication dated 07/05/2013 Annexure P-5.

¶33

The Municipal Corporation filed the reply stating and accepting the

¶34

5

¶35

fact that the road has been constructed over the land of the petitioner and stated that after receipt of the notice from this Court, the corporation has immediately examined the case of the petitioner and contended that the corporation constructed road over the land of the petitioner. The corporation further submits that it has no objection in case, if the possession of land return to the petitioners in which the road has been constructed and the respondent is ready to hand over the possession of the land in question. The corporation also filed a detailed reply to the writ petition.

¶36

During the course of hearing, this Court vide order dated 13/07/2023 directed the Commissioner, Municipal Corporation, Durg to appear before this Court along with the person who is well acquainted with the Land Acquisition proceeding and would explain why the compensation has not been given to the petitioner, though the land has been acquired for construction of road. Further on 28/07/2023, pursuant to the order dated 13/07/2023, the Commissioner, Municipal Corporation, Durg appeared and states that they are willing and ready to pay principal amount of compensation of Rs.31,90,986/- to the petitioner and would undertake to pay the amount before 15^th August, 2023. This Court observed in the order that the Commissioner and the State will keep their promise made before this Court and rest of the grievance of the petitioner with regard to

¶37

6

¶38

interest will be decided subsequently.

¶39

Pursuant to said order, the Commissioner, Municipal Corporation paid the principal amount of the compensation. Vide order dated 25/09/2024, it was again directed to the Commissioner by this Court to file an affidavit whether they are willing to pay the interest on the compensation amount or not, and if not, explain why the petitioner is not entitle for interest on the principal compensation though the land has been used since 2013.

¶40

Pursuance to the direction of this Court, the respondent/ corporation filed an affidavit of the Commissioner and stated that the petitioner has agreed to accept the compensation amount and thereafter, the same has been paid to the petitioner on 14/08/2023. They filed a consent agreement executed by the petitioner before the Municipal Corporation and the Commissioner stated in his affidavit that as the petitioner has specifically consented that he will never claimed any additional amount and he will cooperate to the Corporation for mutation of the land in the name of the corporation. The petitioner again not entitled for any interest on the compensation amount awarded to him. The Commissioner further contended that in the year 2018, in his reply, the Corporation has provided specific offer to the petitioner to get back his land but the petitioner never acted upon or interested to get back his land and proceeded in the writ petition, hence, at this stage, the petitioner cannot claim interest on the

¶41

7

¶42

compensation amount.

¶43

Learned counsel for the petitioner by referring the provisions of Section 34 fo the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 submits that the petitioner is entitled for interest from the date of taking possession of the land in question. He further relied upon an order of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Gayabai Digambar Puri (Died) thr LR Vs. The Executive Engineer & Ors¹ , where there was a direction of the Hon’ble Supreme Court that the appellant would be entitled for interest from the date when the possession of the land was taken.

¶44

Learned counsel for the respondent/corporation submits that as far as the interest part is concerned, in the entire writ petition, no such relief was sought for by the petitioner and in the reply of respondent/corporation, paragraph 3, the corporation was agreed to return the land, the petitioner never come forward to respond to the said proposal and he relied upon a judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Mrs. Akella Lalitha Vs. Sri Konda Hanumantha Rao & Anr² and submits that it is well settled law that relief not found on pleadings should not be granted.

¶45

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

¶46

As far as the interest over the compensation under the land

¶47

1 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 15 (Diary No.17566 of 2020)

¶48

2 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 638 (Civil Appeal No.6325-6326 of 2015 28-7-2022)

¶49

8

¶50

acquisition proceeding are concerned, as the land has been used without acquisition prior to a new Act came into existence i.e. the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013. It would be appropriate to see the provisions Section 34 of the Land Acquisition Act 1894, which as follows:-

¶51

34. Payment of Interest – When the amount of such compensation is paid or deposited on or before taking possession of the land, the Collector shall pay the amount awarded with interest thereon at the rate of [nine per centum] per annum from the time of so taking possession until it shall have been so paid or deposited:

¶52

[Provided that if such compensation or any part thereof is not paid or deposited within a period of one year from the date on which possession is taken, interest at the rate of fifteen per centum per annum shall be payable from the date or expiry of the said period of one year on the amount of compensation or part thereof which has not been paid or deposited before the date of such expiry]

¶53

At the same time, the judgment relied upon by the petitioner

¶54

Gayabai Digambar Puri (Died) (supra) is also relevant when Hon’ble Supreme Court observed that the normal rule is that if on

¶55

9

¶56

account of acquisition of land a person is deprived of possession of his property, he should be paid compensation immediately and if the same is not paid to him forthwith, he would be entitled to interest on the compensation amount from the date of taking possession of the land till the date of payment.

¶57

Reverting to the facts of the present case, it is not in dispute that the land of the petitioner has been used by constructing the road over the same in the year 2013. The respondent/corporation also not controverted the fact that the land of the petitioner has been used in the year 2013 and concrete road has been constructed over the said land. The respondent/corporation also accepted the fact that the land has been used but no compensation has been paid for the same, they have assessed the amount and requested the Land Acquisition Officer for acquisition of the land in question on 07/05/2013. It means, the land of the petitioner has been used and the concrete road has been constructed over the same prior to 07/05/2013. As far as the contention of the respondent/corporation that no relief with regard to the interest has been sought for in the petition and he is not entitled for any such relief of interest is concerned, in the judgment of the Supreme Court relied by the respondent/corporation itself it has observed that it is settled law that relief not found in pleading should not be granted. If a Court considers or grants a relief for which no prayer or pleadings were made depriving the respondent of an opportunity to oppose the

¶58

10

¶59

relief, it would lead to miscarriage of justice. It means, even the relief which has not been sought for by the petitioner can be granted but subject to that can be granted by affording an opportunity to oppose or resist such relief to the respondent.

¶60

In the present case, vide order dated 25/09/2024, an opportunity was provided to the Commissioner, Municipal Corporation, Durg to file an affidavit directing him to explain why the petitioner is not entitled for interest on the principal amount of compensation, though the land has been used since 2013 and the respondent/corporation has filed an affidavit contending that though the land was used in the year 2013 but by filing a return to the writ petition, they have offered that they are ready to return the land which has been used by them and the petitioner did not come forward to accept the said offer, hence, the petitioner is not entitled for any relief of interest for the late payment of the compensation amount.

¶61

On perusal of the record and the order sheets, it is found that the respondent/corporation on their own made payment of the compensation amount to the petitioner which has been accepted by the petitioner by keeping open the question whether the petitioner is entitled for the interest or not. As the petitioner’s land has been used prior to 07/05/2013 for construction of road by the corporation, but the compensation amount has been paid in the year 2023 only, hence, from aforesaid discussion as well as the provisions of

¶62

11

¶63

Section 34 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and the judgment of the Supreme Court in the matter of Gayabai Digambar Puri (Supra), the petitioner is entitled for interest at the rate of 9 % per annum over the amount of compensation from the date of taking over of the possession till the payment of the compensation amount.

¶64

In the result, the writ petition is allowed to the above extent. The respondents are directed to make payment of the interest over the compensation amount, as stated above, within a period of two months from today.

¶65

There shall be no order as to cost(s).

¶66

SD/(Bibhu Datta Guru) Judge

¶67

Amardeep

Manohar Lal Jeswani (Died Through Lrs) v. State Of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Manohar Lal Jeswani (Died Through Lrs) v. State Of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mahendra Kumar Nathhani Vs State Of Chhattisgarh and Ors.

Smt. Mayurika Pandey and Anr. Vs State Of Chhattisgarh and Ors.

Girja Prasad Mahar Vs State Of Chhattisgarh

Padmini Bhoi Vs The Board Of Revenue

Anil Tamboli Vs State Of Chhattisgarh

Bihari Lal Thawait Vs State Of Chhattisgarh