Dismissed

Krishna Kumar v. State of Chhattisgarh

Chhattisgarh HC2 Dec 2024WPC/4427/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This order dismissed a writ petition challenging a revised land acquisition award that reduced compensation payable to the petitioners. The court held that despite relevant precedents, the appeal was barred by inordinate and unexplained delay of six years, preventing the exercise of extraordinary jurisdiction.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition stands dismissed on account of delay and latches; no relief granted.

Krishna Kumar Vs State of Chhattisgarh — Land Acquisition | Chhattisgarh HC (2024)

1 / 8

2024:CGHC:47563

NAFR

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶5

Order Reserved on 13.09.2024 Order Delivered on 03.12.2024

¶6

WPC No. 4427 of 2024

¶7

1 - Krishna Kumar S/o Purushottam Sahu, Aged About 54 Years R/o Sarojani Chowk, Near Dena Bank, Ward No. 3, Kurud, Tahsil Kurud, District-Dhamtari (C.G.)

¶8

2 - Balram Sahu S/o Purushottam Sahu, Aged About 52 Years R/o Sarojani Chowk, Near Dena Bank, Ward No. 3, Kurud, Tahsil Kurud, District-Dhamtari (C.G.)

¶9

... Petitioners

¶10

Versus

¶11

1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of Revenue And Disaster Management, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar Nawa Raipur, District-Raipur,(C.G.)

¶12

3 - Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue) And Land Acquisition Officer, Kurud, District Dhamtari(C.G.)

¶13

4 - Union Of India, Through Secretary, Ministry Of Road Transport And Highways, Transport Bhawan-1, Parliament Street, New Delhi110001.

¶14

5 - Project Director, National Highways Authority Of India (Nhai), Implementation Unit, Raipur, District- Raipur (C.G.)

¶15

... Respondents

¶16

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Govind Prasad Dewangan, Advocate along with Mr. Rupendra Dewangan, Advocate for the Petitioner. For Respondent-State : Mr. Keshav Prasad Gupta, Government Advocate For Respondent No. 4 : Ms. Anmol Sharma, Central Government Counsel For Respondent No. 5 : Mr. Dheeraj Kumar Wankhede, Advocate SB: Hon'ble Shri Parth Prateem Sahu, Judge

¶17

C A V ORDER

¶18

SHUBHAM DEY

¶19

Digitally signed by SHUBHAM DEY

¶20

2 / 8

¶21

The petitioners have filed this writ petition seeking following reliefs:-

¶22

“10.1 That, the Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to call for the entire records in relates to the case of the petitioner from the possession of the respondents for its kind perusal.

¶23

10.2 That, the Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to set-aside the impugned amended/modified award dated 22.11.2016 (Annexure P/1) passed by the Respondent No. 3 to the extent of reduction of compensation in respect of the petitioner and further be pleased to direct the Respondent No. 3 to pay the compensation to the petitioner as determined in the final award dated 12.07.2016 with interest @ 18% per annum within a period of 15 days.

¶24

10.3 That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondents pay the differences of compensation payable to the petitioner as determined in the final award dated 12.07.2016 within a period of 15 days.

¶25

10.4 That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondents to disburse/distribute the entire amount of compensation to the petitioner as determined under the provision of National Highways Act, 1956 and further, be pleased to direct the respondents to grant interest @ 18% per annum on the amount of compensation from the date of notification till date of actual payment to the petitioner and as per the calculation of the petitioner and as per the final award/original award, the petitioner would be entitled to get the sum of Rs. 21490952/- in addition to the amount paid which has already paid to him with interest @ 18% per annum, the Respondent No. 3 has paid compensation only to the sum of Rs. 1118862/- to the petitioner.

¶26

10.5 That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to grant any other relief/relief’s in favour of the petitioner, which the Hon’ble Court deemed fit and just in the facts and circumstances of the case, including the awarding of the costs to the petitioner.”

¶27

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is owner of the lands bearing Khasra No. 653/1 and 652/2 admeasuring 0.0554 and 0.0865 hectares respectively situated at Village Kurud, Tehsil – Kurud, District – Dhamtari, (C.G.). The respondents have initiated proceedings for acquisition of the land owned by the petitioners along with others

¶28

3 / 8

¶29

under the provisions of the National Highways Act, 1956 (hereinafter for brevity referred to as the Act, 1956) for construction/widening of National Highway No. 30 (Old No. 43). Final award was passed on 12.07.2016 (Annexure P/2) by the Respondent No. 3, amount of compensation under the land acquisition proceedings was determined under the provisions of Section 3 (G) of the Act, 1956. The Respondent No. 3 thereafter, passed an impugned amended/modified award dated 22.11.2016 (Annexure P/1) after a gap of more than 02 months by modifying/amending the final award dated 12.07.2016 (Annexure P/2) with respect to the petitioners and thereby, reducing the quantum of compensation determined in the final award.

¶30

It is contention of the counsel for the petitioners that after passing of the award, the Land-Acquisition Officer/Respondent No. 3 has no power to review, amend or modify the final award passed under the provisions of Section 3 (G) of the Act, 1956 and therefore, the impugned order dated 22.11.2016 (Annexure P/1) amending the award is without jurisdiction. The issue with regard to the powers of the Land-Acquisition Officer/Respondent No. 3 to review, amend or modify the final award passed under the provisions of Section 3 (G) of the Act, 1956 has already been adjudicated and decided in the case of Mahesh Nachrani & Ors.

¶31

Vs. Union of India & Ors. decided on 14.09.2020 in WP (C) No. 665/2019 wherein, the Court held that the Land-Acquisition Officer has no power to review, amend or modify the final award passed under the provisions of Section 3 (G) of the Act, 1956.

¶32

He also contended that once the final award has been passed and published, the prescribed authority thereafter becomes functus officio and therefore, the impugned amended/modified award dated 22.11.2016 (Annexure P/1) be set-aside. He also contended that there is delay in challenging the impugned modified/amended award because the

¶33

4 / 8

¶34

petitioners are villagers and have no knowledge as to how to challenge the award but, they regularly approached the authorities to grant the entire amount of compensation as determined in the final award, but no action was taken, despite repeated requests. As the lands of the petitioners are acquired by the respondents, it is the duty of the competent authority to give just and proper compensation to the land oustees. He contended that in the final award multiplier factor of two was used whereas, in the modified and amended award, multiplier factor of one is used. Only because petitioners have approached this Court with some delay, his right to get just and proper compensation would not be thrown out.

¶35

In support of his contention, learned counsel for the petitioners relies upon the decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Vidya Devi Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors. (2020) 2 SCC 569, Sukh Dutt Ratre Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh (2022) 7 SCC 508, Bhupendra Singh Vs. Competent Authority (2019) SCC OnLine Bom 6092, Ravindra Kumar Singh Vs. Union of India (2019) SCC OnLine All 3589, National Highway Authority of India Vs. Assistant Commissioner and Competent Authority, Kolar and Another (2011) SCC Online KAR 115, Naresh Kumar & Ors. Vs. Government (NCT of Delhi) (2019) 9 SCC 416.

¶36

On the other hand, learned counsel for the Respondent No. 5 vehemently opposing submissions of counsel for the petitioners and would submit that the writ petition as framed and filed by the petitioners is devoid of merits and substance. He contended that as the petitioners are also claiming that they are entitled of solatium and interest in the compensation amount which is pertaining to the determination of compensation amount by the competent authority-cum-Land Acquisition Officer under Section 3 (G) of

¶37

5 / 8

¶38

the Act, 1956, petitioner is having efficacious remedy under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.

¶39

He further contended that the writ petition filed by the petitioners is barred by limitation. The petitioners have approached this Court after almost 08 years of the passing of the award. He contended that the maximum period under which the petitioners could have approached this Court or availed the other proceedings is of 03 years, under the provisions of Section 137 of the Limitation Act, 1963. The petitioners have filed this writ petition after an inordinate delay of 08 years. He also submits that the case of Vidya Devi (Supra) relied upon by the counsel for the petitioners is distinguishable on facts. He contended that the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Veena Singh Vs. Union of India & Ors. (2021) SCC OnLine Chh 250 has considered the delay in the land acquisition proceedings wherein, the appellant therein has relied upon the decision in the case of Vidya Devi (Supra) and the Division Bench held that when, once the compensation awarded by the authorities concerned is considered without demur and the appellant therein sought to approach this Court by way of revelation only after an inordinate delay of 02 years and 03 months, have dismissed the writ appeal. In support of his contention, he also relied upon the decision in the case of National

¶40

Highway Authority of India Vs. Sampata Devi & Ors. 2023:AHCLKO:71310.

¶41

I have heard learned counsel for the respective parties and also perused the documents placed before this Court for perusal.

¶42

The order which is under challenge is dated 22.11.2016 (Annexure P/1) whereby, the Respondent No. 3 has amended/corrected the earlier award dated 12.07.2016 (Annexure P/2). The jurisdiction of the Land-Acquisition Officer/Respondent No. 3 of correcting, modifying or amending the awarded passed, was considered in the case of WP (C) No. 665/2019

¶43

6 / 8

¶44

(Mahesh Nachrani & Ors. Vs. Union of India & Ors and other connected matters) wherein, the Court taking note of the relevant provision under the Act, 1956; the decision on the issue of Bhupendra Singh (Supra), Ravindra Kumar Singh (Supra), National Highways Authority of India Vs. Assistant Commissioner (Supra), Naresh Kumar (Supra) has held that the review is always considered to be a creature of statute and the power of review cannot be entertained in absence of a provision thereafter.

¶45

Be that as it may, the writ petition is filed challenging the impugned amended/corrected/modified award dated 22.11.2016 (Annexure P/1) only on 24.08.2024 i.e. nearly about 06 years from the date of passing of the amended/modified award. The objection is raised by the respondents of inordinate delay in approaching this court. The decision in the case of Vidya Devi (Supra) , facts were that, the lands of the appellants therein was acquired by the respondents therein. She was divested from her private property. However, no proceedings of land acquisition with respect to acquisition of her land was initiated, no amount of compensation was calculated and paid. In that facts of the case, Hon’ble Supreme Court has passed the order observing that the State admitted that the land was taken over without initiating acquisition proceedings or any procedure known to law and in exercise of extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 136 and 142 of the Constitution of India and directed the Stat to pay compensation to the appellants therein.

¶46

The other decision relied upon by the counsel for the petitioners in the case of Sukh Dutt Ratre (Supra) wherein also, the land of the appellants therein were acquired by the respondents therein, however, no proceedings of the land acquisition was initiated, amount of compensation was not determined and paid and in that facts of the case, Hon’ble Supreme Court observed that no period of limitation is prescribed for the

¶47

7 / 8

¶48

Court to exercise their constitutional jurisdiction to do substantial justice, following the case of Vidya Devi (Supra). The decision in the case of Vetindia Pharmaceuticals Limited Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and

¶49

Anr. (2021) 1 SCC 804 is also distinguishable on facts.

¶50

In the case at hand, at the time of acquisition of the lands owned by the petitioners, respondents have initiated the proceedings of the land acquisition under the Act, 1956 and the amount of compensation was calculated, however, by way of the amended award dated 22.11.2016 (Annexure P/1), the amount of compensation was reduced. It was not the case of the petitioners that they were not aware of the amended award in fact, the pleading is that after passing of the amended award, they approached the authorities time and again, asking them to pay the amount of compensation as determined in the earlier award dated 12.07.2016 (Annexure P/2). However, no supporting documents in this regard has been filed. It is not the case that after acquisition of the lands of the petitioners, no acquisition proceedings was drawn and no amount of compensation is paid and therefore, in the facts of the case, when the petitioners have approached this Court after a delay of about 06 years, without giving any proper, satisfactory and sufficient reasons, writ petition is hit by delay and latches and therefore, it is liable to be and is hereby dismissed on account of delay and latches only.

¶51

The Division Bench of this Court in the case of Veena Singh (Supra) considered the delay of 02 years and 03 months to be inordinate delay and considering the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Bhoop Singh Vs. Union of India reported in (1992) 3 SCC 136 observed that matter already settled cannot be unsettled, as also, the decision in the case of Rabindra Nath Bose Vs. Union of India & Ors. (1970) 1 SCC 84 had dismissed the writ appeal.

¶52

8 / 8

¶53

For the foregoing discussions and the decisions as referred above, petitioner has approached this Court with inordinate unexplained delay, as such, the writ petition is hit by delay and latches and therefore, no relief as prayed for can be granted to the petitioner. Accordingly, the writ petition stands dismissed.

¶54

15.Accordingly, the writ petition stands dismissed.

¶55

Sd/Sd/(Parth Prateem Sahu) Judge

¶56

Dey

Krishna Kumar v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Krishna Kumar v. State of Chhattisgarh

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

Pt. Ravi Shnker Shukla Vs Regional Director and Anr.

Kailash Mahant Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Jageshwar Singh Deewan Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Chhattisgarh Samvaad Vs M/S Shri Ram Printers and Stationers

Chhattisgarh Samvaad Vs M/S Kaiyumi Printing Press

Chandra Kumar Kanwar Vs State of Chhattisgarh