Dismissed

Smt. Geeta Bai Sahu v. State of Chhattisgarh

Chhattisgarh HC20 Jun 2024WPC/2184/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition concerning unpaid land acquisition compensation, the Chhattisgarh High Court dismissed the application because a factual dispute existed regarding the petitioner's actual possession of the land area claimed.

What the court decided

AI extract

Smt. Geeta Bai Sahu Vs State of Chhattisgarh — Land Acquisition | Chhattisgarh HC (2024)

¶1

Page No.1

¶2

NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

¶3

WPC No. 2184 of 2024

¶4

Smt. Geeta Bai Sahu W/o Shri Shankar Lal Sahu Aged About 53 Years Village - Gudhiyari, Tehsil And District Raipur (C.G.)

¶5

---- Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Department Of Revenue, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Nawa Raipur Atal Nagar, Raipur (C.G.)

¶8

2.District Collector District Raipur, Raipur (C.G.) 3.Land Acquisition Officer And Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue) Raipur District Raipur (C.G.)

¶9

4.Executive Engineer Public Works Department, Sub Division 1, District Raipur, (C.G.)

¶10

---- Respondents

¶11

For Petitioner : Mr. Ankur Agrawal and Ms. Sameeksha Gupta, Advocates. For respondent State : Mr. Dilman Rati Minj, Govt. Advocate.

¶12

Hon'ble Shri Justice Parth Prateem Sahu

¶13

Order On Board

¶14

21/06/2024

¶15

Petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking following relief:

¶16

“10.1 This Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to call for the entire records of the matter pertaining to the non-payment of the amount due to the petitioner for the land acquired by the State.

¶17

10.2 This Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue Writ(s)/Order/direction(s) quashing the impugned rejection order dated 10.08.2022(Annexrure-P/2) passed by respondent No.2 and the subsequent memorandum dated 17.10.2023(Annexure-P/1) by respondent No.3 as illegal, arbitrary and in violation of petitioners’ fundamental and constitutional rights, and/or

¶18

10.3 This Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue

¶19

Page No.2

¶20

writ(s)/order/direction(s) in the nature of directions directing the respondent authorities to pay in full amount of compensation for the rest of the land acquired i.e. 0.0086 Hectare by the State along with an interest at the rate of 18% from the date of amount due and payable or initiate fresh land acquisition proceedings for the petitioner’s land 0.0086 hectares.

¶21

10.4 Any other relief(s)/order(s)/direction(s) in favor of petitioner, which this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case, in the interest of justice.”

¶22

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner became owner of land bearing khasra No.869/1 measuring 0.025 hectare Patwari Halka No.107/49 situated at Village Gudiyari, Tahsil and District-Raipur, Chhattisgarh. Land was purchased in the year 2011, however, thereafter State Government widened the road situated in front of her land and the land of the petitioner is also used for construction and widening of existing road, but she is not paid appropriate amount of compensation.

¶23

Aggrieved with the action of respondent/State in not paying the amount of compensation of the land used for construction of road, she submitted representation before the Collector who also failed to take decision on the representation and thereafter petitioner had filed writ petition bearing WPC No.363/2018. This Court considering the nature of grievance raised, in particular private ownership land of the petitioner to be used by the Government for construction and widening of the road, the writ petition was disposed of directing respondent No.2 therein i.e. Collector, to consider and decide representation submitted by the petitioner. The Collector considered the representation submitted by the petitioner and accordingly, petitioner was paid the amount of compensation with respect to the area 0.006 hectare only

¶24

Page No.3

¶25

and the compensation was paid under the Mutual Purchase Policy 2016. Petitioner is though owner of land admeasuring 0.025 hectare of land, but the compensation is not paid of the entire land and therefore, petitioner has filed another writ petition before this Court which was disposed of again directing the respondent Collector to consider and decide her claim. The Collector considered the claim of the petitioner and dismissed the representation vide order dated 10.8.2022 in an arbitrary manner without considering the fact that the petitioner purchased the land bearing khasra No.869/1 measuring 0.025 hectare and entire land of the petitioner has been utilized for widening and construction of the road, therefore, the order dated 10.8.2022 passed by the Collector be quashed and respondent be directed to pay the compensation to the petitioner of the entire land i.e. 0.025 hectare.

¶26

Learned State counsel opposes the submission made by learned counsel for the petitioner and submits that pursuant to the order passed by this Court for taking decision on the claim of the petitioner, the Collector has taken decision and has passed detailed reasoned order as to why petitioner is not entitled for any further amount of compensation. He contended that though there is mention in the saledeed that the petitioner purchased land measuring 0.025 hectare, however, she was in possession of only on 0.0100 hectare land of khasra owned by the petitioner. On the land measuring 0.008 hectare the road was existing and remaining land was used for the purpose of widening of road. He referred to Para-6 of the order passed by the Collector dated 10.8.2022(Annexure-P/2) in support of his contention . He also contended that in the aforementioned facts of the case there appears to be disputed facts with respect to the possession of the area which the petitioner possessed on the date of widening of the road,

¶27

Page No.4

¶28

therefore, no relief can be granted to the petitioner in writ jurisdiction.

¶29

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents enclosed with petition.

¶30

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submission made by learned counsel for the parties, in particular submission of counsel for petitioner based on the documents enclosed with writ petition that petitioner initially filed writ petition seeking a direction to the Collector to consider claim of petitioner and grant compensation, and after direction issued by this Court for deciding representation, the petitioner was awarded compensation with respect to the area measuring 0.0064 hectare of land. Further that when in the second round of the writ petition pursuant to direction issued by this Court, the Collector again considered the representation submitted by the petitioner, had passed detailed order that on some portion of the land 0.0100 hectare of land the road was constructed earlier to the widening of road.

¶31

There appears to be factual dispute with respect to the possession of the land of petitioner on the date of widening of the road, therefore, in the opinion of this Court, no relief can be granted to the petitioner in this proceedings. Petitioner has to prove the disputed facts in accordance with law before appropriate forum. Hence, the writ petition is dismissed reserving liberty to the petitioner to avail other efficacious remedy under the law.

¶32

Sd/-

¶33

(Parth Prateem Sahu) Judge

¶34

Nisha

Smt. Geeta Bai Sahu v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Smt. Geeta Bai Sahu v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mantram Nishad Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Laxmi Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Parth Debnath Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Suraj @ Rahul Malar Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Awadhram Sahu Vs Government of India

Anish Minj Vs State of Chhattisgarh