Kotwar families whose service lands were notified for national highway acquisition but denied compensation sought release of determined amounts with interest. The High Court disposed of the petitions by directing them to make detailed representations within one month for consideration by authorities within four months.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
1 / 10
WPC No.2003 of 2016 & Other connected matters
2024:CGHC:43994
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
WPC No. 2003 of 2016
versus
K GOWRI SANKARA RAO
WPC No. 2005 of 2016
2 / 10
WPC No.2003 of 2016 & Other connected matters
----Petitioner
Versus
WPC No. 2407 of 2016
Versus
3 / 10
WPC No.2003 of 2016 & Other connected matters
---- Respondents
For respective : Shri Sushobhit Singh, Shri Basant Kaiwartya Petitioners & Shri Surfuraj Khan, Advocates. For Respondent/State : Shri Abhishek Singh, Panel Lawyer.
Hon'ble Shri Justice Bibhu Datta Guru
Order on Board
12.11.2024
4 / 10
WPC No.2003 of 2016 & Other connected matters
Khasra No. 398, admeasuring 0.37 acre, PH No. 5, situated at Village Dodki.
(c) In WPC No. 2407/2016 the petitioner claiming himself as Bhoomiswami and sought for compensation in respect of land bearing Khasra No. 37, admeasuring 0.160 hectare, situated at Village Harethi.
5 / 10
WPC No.2003 of 2016 & Other connected matters
prepared under Section 3G of the Act, 1956 and, as such, the respondent authorities are duty bound to release the amount of compensation as the said land has been acquired. He would further submit that the award patrak prepared by determining the compensation just before passing of the award.
(ii) Learned counsel would refer to Section 3(c)(v) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (for short ‘the Act, 2013’), which defined the ‘affected family’ includes a member of the family who has been assigned land by the State Government or the Central Government under any of its schemes and such land is under acquisition. He would also refer the provision of Section 3(r)(iii)(iv) of the Act, 2013, which defines the word ‘land owner’ includes any person (iii) who is entitled to be granted patta rights on the land under any law of the State including assigned lands: or (iv) any person who has been declared as such by an order of the Court or authority. According to the learned Counsel, the petitioners are falling under the definition of ‘affected family’, as they have been assigned the lands by the State Government which are known as service land to the Kotwar. The petitioners also coming within the definition of ‘land owner’ as the land has been assigned to them.
(iii) Learned counsel would place reliance upon the decision rendered by the Full Bench of the Andhra Pradesh High Court rendered in the matter of Land Acquisition Officer-Cum-Revenue Divisional Officer
6 / 10
WPC No.2003 of 2016 & Other connected matters
and Others etc. v Mekala Pandu and Others etc.1 wherein the similar issue was came up for consideration and a question was framed that “whether the claimants are entitled to payment of compensation under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, when the assigned lands are resumed by the Government for a public purpose?” The said issue was decided in favour of the claimant observing that the assignees of the Government lands are entitled to payment of compensation to the full market value of the land and other benefits on par with full owners of the land even in cases where the assigned lands are taken possession of by the State in accordance with the terms of the grant or patta, though such resumption is for a public purpose.
1 2004 STPL 4817 AP : AIR 2004 Andhra Pradesh 250
7 / 10
WPC No.2003 of 2016 & Other connected matters
purpose of construction of national highway. By referring the circular dated 10.03.2014 (Annexure R/1), learned counsel would submit that looking to the fact that Kotwars have sold the Government/service land to other persons directed for restoration of the lands sold by the Kotwars and thereafter, record the same as service land in the revenue records. (B) Learned counsel for the respondent would also submit that the petitioners are not the actual owners of the land whereas they are Kotwar and they have been granted the Government land as a service land for their service and hence the petitioners are not entitled for compensation. According to the learned counsel, the writ petitions filed by the petitioners are not maintainable, because they have not challenged the award patrak dated 23.07.2016, which was immediately i.e. within a couple of days, issued by correcting the award patrak dated 21.07.2016 and the lands of the petitioners were excluded from the award patrak and no compensation was assessed in respect of the said land, therefore, the land acquiring authority is not bound to pay any compensation for acquisition of Government land, which is owned by the Government itself. Learned counsel would pray for dismissal of all the writ petitions.
8 / 10
WPC No.2003 of 2016 & Other connected matters
Kotwar. The lands are belong to the State Government and by circular dated 10.03.2014, the State Government has clarified and directed for restoration of lands sold by the Kotwars and thereafter to record the same as service land. It means the lands in question are Government lands/service lands and the petitioners cannot claim themselves as Bhoomiswami/owner of the said service land.
9 / 10
WPC No.2003 of 2016 & Other connected matters
10 / 10
WPC No.2003 of 2016 & Other connected matters
Full Bench of the Andhra Pradesh in the matter of Mekala Pandu (supra) and in the interest of justice, it would be proper to grant liberty to the petitioners to make detailed individual representations by raising their grievances before the concerned respondent authorities within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and thereafter, the said authority shall consider and decide the same, in accordance with law and on its own merits, by keeping in mind the aforesaid provisions as well as the decision of the Full Bench of the Andhra Pradesh High Court, within a further period of four months from the date of receipt of representation of the petitioner.
Sd/-
(Bibhu Datta Guru) Judge
Gowri
2 issues framed by the court
Are assignees of Government service land (Kotwar land) entitled to compensation when the assigned land is acquired for a national highway?
Should compensation be released despite a corrected award patrak excluding the petitioners' lands?
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Land Acquisition Officer-Cum-Revenue Divisional Officer and Others etc. v Mekala Pandu and Others etc.Relied on¶12
2004 STPL 4817 AP : AIR 2004 Andhra Pradesh 250 · Who else cites this
4 provisions across 3 enactments
Chamar Singh
Tijmat Bai
Santosh Kumar
State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary Department Of Revenue
The Collector, Janjgir
National Highway Authority Of India
Bibhu Datta Guru
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
