Allowed

Ram Khilavan Banjare v. State Of Chhattisgarh And Ors.

Chhattisgarh HC18 Nov 2024WPC/1597/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Chhattisgarh High Court quashed land acquisition proceedings because the award was not passed within 12 months of the deemed declaration under Section 25 of the 2013 Act, applying the Supreme Court's position in Maharashtra Vidarbha Irrigation Development Corporation.

What did the court decide?

Quashing of the entire land acquisition proceedings and award dated 19.09.2013; liberty to the State to initiate fresh proceedings.

Ram Khilavan Banjare Vs State Of Chhattisgarh And Ors. — Land Acquisition | Chhattisgarh HC (2024)

¶1

1 / 6

¶2

Digitally signed ASHISH by TIWARI ASHISH HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR TIWARI

¶3

NAFR

¶4

WPC No. 1597 of 2014

¶5

Ram Khilavan Banjare, S/o Shri Samaru Banjare, aged about 38 Years, R/o Village Sendh, Tah Arang, Distt Raipur (C.G.)

¶6

Jeevan Banjare (Deleted) As Per The Hon'ble Court Order Dated 05-10-2021.

¶7

Ganga Prasad Banjare, S/o Shri Samaru Banjare, aged about 48 Years, R/o Village Sendh, Tah Arang, Distt Raipur, Cg, District : Raipur (C.G.)

¶8

Thakur Ram (Deleted) As Per The Hon'ble Court Order Dated 05-10-2021

¶9

Ganga Prasad (Deleted) As Per The Hon'ble Court Order Dated 05-10-2021

¶10

Ramendra Kumar Baghel (Deleted) As Per The Hon'ble Court Order Dated 05-102021.

¶11

Digesh Kumar (Deleted) As Per The Hon'ble Court Order Dated 05-10-2021.

¶12

Ram Kumar, S/o Shir Johan Ram, aged about 38 Years, R/o Village Sendh, Tah Arang, District : Raipur (C.G.)

¶13

Hirde, S/o Shri Kholbharha, aged about 36 Years, R/o Village Sendh, Tah Arang, District : Raipur (C.G.)

¶14

... Petitioners

¶15

Versus

¶16

State Of Chhattisgarh And Ors. S/o Through Secretary, Department Of Housing And Environment, Mantralaya, Naya Raipur, Dist Raipur (C.G.)

¶17

Department Of Agriculture And Animal Husbandry Through Secretary, Mantralaya, Naya Raipur, Distt. Raipur (C.G.)

¶18

District Collector Collectorate, Raipur, Dist Raipur (C.G.)

¶19

Naya Raipur Development Authority Throuth its Chief Executive Officer, New Rajendra Nagar, Infront Of Vijeta Complex, R.D.A. Building, Raipur, Dist Raipur (C.G.)

¶20

Land Acquisition Officer/ Sub Divisional Officer, Tah Aarang, Abhanpur, Civil And Revenue Distt Raipur (C.G.)

¶21

Commissioner, Raipur, Dist Raipur (C.G.)

¶22

... Respondents

¶23

For Petitioners	:	Shri SanjayKumar Agrawal, Advocate.
For Respondent No. 1	:	Shri Shailendra Sharma, P.L.
For Respondent No. 4	:	Shri Praveen Das, Advocate.

¶24

2 / 6

¶25

Hon'ble Shri Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad

¶26

Order on Board

¶27

19.11.2024

¶28

Heard.

¶29

The petitioners have prayed for quashment of the entire land acquisition proceedings in Land Acquisition Case No.20-A/82 (Patwari Halka No.67/21) of the year 2012-13, Village Sendh, Tehsil Arang District Raipur, together with the Notification under Section 4 and declaration under Section 6, both under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (in short “the Act, 1894” or “old Act”) as well as the award dated 19.09.2013 passed under Section 23 of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition and Resettlement Act, 2013 (in short “the Act, 2013” or “new Act”).

¶30

The undisputed chronology of the land acquisition proceedings is that a Notification under Section 4 of the Act, 1894 was issued on 21.6.2013 for proposed acquisition of 5.55 hectares of land for public purpose i.e. for development of Naya Raipur.

¶31

Before the land acquisition proceedings could proceed further under the Act, 1894, the Act, 2013 came into force w.e.f. 1.1.2014. Under Section 24 of the Act, 2013, the land acquisition proceedings could have been continued under the said Act, however, the Land Acquisition Officer chose to issue a declaration under Section 6 of the old Act on 23.6.2014. Treating this to be declaration under Section 19 of the New Act, the Land Acquisition Officer proceeded in the matter and eventually passed an award on 19.09.2013.

¶32

On the basis of the above chronology, it is argued that under Section 25 of the New Act, the award is necessarily to be passed within a period of 12 months from the date of declaration under Section 19, therefore, even if the declaration under Section 6 of the old Act is treated to be a declaration under Section 19 of the new Act, the award should have been passed on or before 3.1.2015. However, the same having not been done, the rigor of Section 25 would come to operate against the land acquisition proceedings.

¶33

Learned counsel for the respective respondents would submit that since the compensation has been assessed under the New Act, the petitioners are not

¶34

3 / 6

¶35

prejudiced, therefore, the writ petitions have no substance.

¶36

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

¶37

The Learned Single Judge of this High Court in W.P.C. No.791 of 2016 has made

¶38

following observations:-

¶39

“i. It is the settled law that the thing which is required to

¶40

be done under a statute shall be done in the manner provided therein or not at all. (See Meera Sahni Vs. Lieutenant Governor of Delhi and others, (2008) 9 SCC 177) .

¶41

ii. In the matters of land acquisition, the mandatory provisions are required to be followed and the holder of the land cannot be accused of acquiescing the matter or being estopped from challenging the same only on the ground that the compensation has been assessed fairly under the new Act.

¶42

iii.If the law mandates that the award has to be passed within a period of 12 months from the date of declaration under Section 19, the same has to be followed in letter and spirit and no deviation is permitted on plain reading of the language implied under Section 25.

¶43

iv. In view of the above and since the main operative part of Section 25 prescribes that if the award is not passed within 12 months, the entire proceedings for acquisition of the land shall lapse, I have no hesitation in quashing the entire land acquisition proceedings.

¶44

v. Accordingly, the land acquisition proceedings is quashed. The respondents would be at liberty to draw fresh proceedings, if they still require any land for public purpose.

¶45

vi.Since the subject land is agricultural land and the

¶46

4 / 6

¶47

petitioners are cultivating the land, there would be difficulty for them to sell paddy through the Cooperative Society and other Government Agencies. Therefore, till the new land acquisition proceeding is drawn and the award is passed, the revenue entries shall be corrected reflecting the name of the petitioners in the said record.

¶48

9. In the matter of The Executive Engineer, Gosikhurd Project Ambadi, Bhandara,

¶49

Maharashtra Vidarbha Irrigation Development Corporation Vs. Mahesh and

¶50

others , reported in (2022) 2 SCC 772 the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held in para No.29, 30 and 31 of its judgment that :-

¶51

“ 29. Given the object and purpose behind Sections 24 and 26 to 30 of the 2013 Act, we notice that practical absurdities and anomalies may arise if the two-year period for making of an award in terms of Section 11-A of the 1894 Act commencing from the date of issue of the declaration is applied to the awards to be made under Section 24(1)(a) of the 2013 Act. This would mitigate against the underlying legislative intent behind prescription of time for making of an award in respect of saved acquisition proceedings initiated under the repealed 1894 Act, which is twofold: (i) to give sufficient time to the authorities to determine compensation payable under the 2013 Act; and (ii) to ensure early and expedited payment to the landowners by reducing the period from two years under Section 11-A of the 1894 Act to twelve months under Section 25 of the 2013 Act. In case of declarations issued in January 2012, on application of Section 11-A of the 1894 Act, the time to determine compensation under the 2013 Act would vary from a day to a month, and while in cases where the declarations were issued within twelve months of the repeal of the 1894 Act, the landowners would be at a disadvantage as an award beyond the twelve-month period specified in Section 25 of the 2013 Act would be valid. In the first set of cases, given the onerous factual and legal exercise involved in determination of compensation and the need to issue notification under Section 26(2) of the 2013 Act, publication of the awards would be impractical. Hasty and incorrect awards would be deleterious for the landowners. If the awards are not pronounced, the acquisition proceedings would lapse defeating the legislative intent behind Section 24(1)(a) of the 2013 Act to save such proceedings. We would, therefore, exercise our choice to arrive at a just, fair and harmonious construction consistent with the legislative intent.

¶52

30. A rational approach so as to further the object and purpose of Sections 24 and 26 to 30 of the 2013 Act is required. We are conscious that Section 25 refers to publication of a notification under Section 19 as the starting point of limitation. In the context of clause (a) to Section

¶53

5 / 6

¶54

24(1) of the 2013 Act there would be no notification under Section 19, but declaration under Section 6 of the 1894 Act. When the declarations under Section 6 are valid as on 1-12014, it is necessary to give effect to the legislative intention and reckon the starting point. In the context of Section 24(1) (a) of the 2013 Act, declarations under Section 6 of the 1894 Act are no different and serve the same purpose as the declarations under Section 19 of the 2013 Act.

¶55

31. Consequently, we hold that in cases covered by clause (a) to Section 24(1) of the 2013 Act, the limitation period for passing/making of an award under Section 25 of the 2013 Act would commence from 1-1-2014, that is, the date when the 2013 Act came into force. Awards passed under clause (a) to Section 24(1) would be valid if made within twelve months from 1-1-2014. This dictum is subject to the caveat stated in paras 20 to 23 (supra) that a declaration which has lapsed in terms of Section 11-A of the 1894 Act before or on 31-12-2013 would not get revived.”

¶56

The Division Bench of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the matter of Vitthal Rama

¶57

Pawar (Katkari) and others Vs. Deputy Collector (Acquisition) Raigad-Alibag

¶58

and others, reported in 2024 SCC OnLine Bom 149, has held in para No.21 and 22 of its judgment as under :-

¶59

“21. Applying the aforesaid principles, we are unable to accept the submission of Ms. Bane that the decision rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Haryana State Industrial & Infrastructure Development Corporation Limited (supra) has impliedly overruled its decision in Executive Engineer, Gosikhurd Project Ambadi, Bhandara,Maharashtra Vidarbha Irrigation Development Corporation (supra).This is more so when one take into consideration that the said judgment in Executive Engineer, Gosikhurd Project Ambadi,Bhandara, Maharashtra Vidarbha Irrigation Development Corporation (supra) has been specifically referred to in Haryana State Industrial & Infrastructure Development Corporation Limited (in paragraph 9 thereof), and the same has not been overruled, either expressly or by necessary implication. Another factor that persuades us to take this view is that one of the Judges in both the matters was the same (A.M. Khanvilkar, J. as he then was). If the Supreme Court, in Haryana State Industrial & Infrastructure Development Corporation Limited wanted to overrule its judgment in Executive Engineer, Gosikhurd Project Ambadi, Bhandara, Maharashtra Vidarbha Irrigation Development Corporation (supra), it would have expressly done so. We therefore find that the argument of Ms. Bane is wholly misplaced and so is the reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Haryana State Industrial & Infrastructure Development Corporation Limited (supra).

¶60

22. As mentioned earlier, this point is squarely covered by the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Executive Engineer, Gosikhurd Project Ambadi, Bhandara, Maharashtra Vidarbha Irrigation Development Corporation (supra) which clearly stipulates that in cases falling under Section 24(1)(a)

¶61

6 / 6

¶62

of the 2013 Act, the limitation period for passing an Award would commence from 1 st January, 2014 and the same would have to be passed within a period of 12 months thereafter, subject to any stay being granted by any Court. In other words, the period during which the stay was operating would have to be excluded for the purposes of calculating the period of 12 months. This has admittedly not been done in the present case. Therefore, on this count also, the entire acquisition proceedings are bad and the Awards passed pursuant thereto, are also unsustainable.”

¶63

The issue involved in this case has already been set at rest by the Hon’ble Supreme Court and therefore, this Court cannot take a different view in the case having similar issue to that of Haryana State Industrial and Infrastructure Development Corporation Limited case (supra) and The Executive Engineer, Gosikhurd Project Ambadi, Bhandara, Maharashtra Vidarbha Irrigation Development Corporation case (supra) . According to Section 25 of the new Act of 2013 if the award has not been passed within 12 months, the entire proceeding for acquisition of the land shall lapsed and liberty is given to the respondents to draw fresh proceedings of land acquisition if they still require any land for public purpose and thus, even if the old land acquisition proceeding has been lapsed/quashed the respondents/State have every right to initiate fresh land acquisition proceeding under the new Act of 2013 if they still requires any land for public purpose.

¶64

With the above observation/direction this writ petition is allowed. The questioned land acquisition proceedings are hereby quashed. However, the respondent / State is having liberty to initiate fresh Land Acquisition proceedings, if acquisition of land in question is still required for public purpose.

¶65

Sd/-

¶66

Amitendra Kishore Prasad)

¶67

Judge

¶68

Ashish

Ram Khilavan Banjare v. State Of Chhattisgarh And Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ram Khilavan Banjare v. State Of Chhattisgarh And Ors.

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

Atul Sharma Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Lal Bahadur Tiwari Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Deepti Tamrakar Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Dilharan Sahu Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Smt.anjali Purohit And Anr. Vs State Of Chhattisgarh And Ors.

Jumman @ Raja Khan Vs State of Chhattisgarh