Sharda Charan Vs Chief Engineer

¶1

1

¶2

Digitally signed byRAVI RAVISHANKAR SHANKARMANDAVI MANDAVI Date: 2025.08.26 17:46:11 +0530

¶3

2025:CGHC:42285

¶4

NAFR

¶5

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶6

ARBA No. 59 of 2025

¶7

1 - Sharda Charan S/o Late Chinta Ram Aged About 72 Years R/o Village - Masniya Kala, Tahsil - Sakti, District - Janjgir-Champa, Now District - Sakti (C.G.) (Applicant No. 1)

¶8

2 - Durgacharan S/o Late Chinta Ram Aged About 58 Years R/o Village - Masniya Kala, Tahsil - Sakti, District - Janjgir-Champa, Now District - Sakti (C.G.) (Applicant No. 2)

¶9

... Appellant(s)

¶10

versus

¶11

1 - Chief Engineer Public Works Department, National Highway Zone, Nh Campus Pension Bada, Raipur (C.G.), Through Executive Engineer, Public Works Department, National Highway Division, Bilaspur (C.G.)

¶12

2 - Sub Divisional Officer Revenue Cum Competent Authority Under Land Acquisition Champa, District Janjgir-Champa (C.G.)

¶13

3 - Additional Commissioner Bilaspur Division, District- Bilaspur (C.G.)

¶14

... Respondent(s)

¶15

(Cause title taken from Case Information System)

¶16

For Appellants : Mr. Soumitra Kesharwani along with Ms. Anusha Naik, Advocate For Respondent No.1 : Mr. Ramakant Mishra, DSGI For State/Respondents : Mr. Rajeev Bharat, Govt. Advocate No.2 & 3.

¶17

Hon’ble Shri Justice Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi

2

Order on Board

21/08/2025

1. Heard on I.A. No.01 of 2025, application for condonation of delay in filing appeal.

¶22

2. On due consideration and for the reasons mentioned in the application, I.A. No.01 of 2025 is allowed and the delay of 2 days in filing the instant appeal is hereby condoned.

¶23

3. Learned counsel for the appellant would submits that vide impugned order dated 25.03.2025 passed by 3^rd District Judge, Janjgir, District Janjgir-Champa in Miscellaneous Civil Case No.25/2019, the award dated 13.11.2017 passed by Arbitrator/Upper Commissioner, Bilaspur Division, Bilaspur in Appeal No.89/A-82/2016-17 (Annexure A/10) has been set-aside holding that respondent No.1 has not been granted due opportunity of hearing which is violation of the principle of natural justice, hence, impugned award is against the public policy.

¶24

Learned counsel for the appellant would further submits that vide impugned award dated 13.11.2017 (Annexure A/10) passed by Arbitrator/Upper Commissioner, it has been directed to recalculate compensation amount for all types of land which is upto 46 meters adjacent to main road @ Rs.1,09,20,000/- per hectare after due enquiry as per rules.

¶25

3

¶26

Learned counsel for the appellant would further submits that vide impugned order dated 25.03.2025, 3^rd District Judge, Janjgir, District Janjgir-Champa has simply set-aside the award of Arbitrator/Upper Commissioner on technical ground without granting any relief to the appellant, hence, he prays that this appeal may be disposed of granting liberty to the appellant herein to file a fresh application under Section 3G(5) of National Highways Act, 1956, before the competent Arbitrator/Upper Commissioner, so that same may be considered by it afresh and after providing due opportunity of hearing to both the parties including the Nation Highway, appropriate order may be passed in the interest of justice.

¶27

4. Learned counsel appearing for respondent No.1 would submits that the Arbitrator/Upper Commissioner neither issued any notice to the answering respondent or recorded their presence, only after seeking report, award dated 13.11.2017 (Annexure A/10) has been passed by the Arbitrator/Upper Commissioner, therefore, he submits that if aforesaid liberty sought for by the appellant is granted to him, then it be directed to the Arbitrator/Upper Commissioner that after providing due opportunity of hearing to the respondent No.1 and other parties appropriate order may be passed.

¶28

5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and also perused the material available in record.

¶29

4

¶30

6. The operative part of award dated 13.11.2017 (Annexure A/10) passed by Arbitrator/Upper Commissioner, Bilaspur Division, Bilaspur, is reproduced below : -

¶31

''केन ् ीय मूल्यांकन बो्ቑ� रायपुर व्दारा अनुमोदिदत गाइ्ቑ लाइन 2015-16 के तहत शारदा चरण उ्቞ दिपता स्व० िሜचताराम शु्ቇा जातित शु्ቇा दिनवासी मसदिनया कला तहसील स्ሹी जिजला जांजगीर-चांपा के स्वादिमत्व की भूदिम खसरा कमांक 324/1 रकबा 0-243 हे० भूदिम पुराना नेशनल हाईवे से लगा हुआ है 20 मीटर के भीतर ቝኌस्6त िሺसतिचत दो फसली होना ्ቚमाणिणत है। त6ा खसरा ्ቅमांक 732 रकबा 0-053 हे० जिजसका अति=्ቇहण नेशनल हाईवे व्दारा दिकया गया है। उ्ሹ भूदिम पुराना नेशनल हाईवे से लगा हुआ नही है। अतः अनुदिवभागीय अति=कारी सह भूअज�न अति=कारी चांपा जिजला जांजगीर एंव काय�पालन अणिभयन्ता, लो०दिन०दिव० रा्ቖ्रीय राजमाग� संभाग दिबलासपुर को दिनदCणिशत दिकया जाता है दिक केन ् ीय मूल्यांकन बो्ቑ� रायपुर व्दारा अनुमोदिदत गाइ्ቑ लाइन 2015-16 ्ቇाम मसदिनया कला प०ह०न० 09 सरल कमांक 69 के तहत खसरा ्ቅ मांक 324/1 रकबा 0-243 हे० भूदिम का मुआवजा राणिश सभी दिकस्म की भूदिम जो मुख्य माग� से 46 मीटर तक 1,09,20,0000/ एक करो्ቑ नौ लाख बीस हजार रूपये ्ቚतित हे० त6ा ्ቚारूप तीन के संबं= में उपबं= दिनयम 7 कंति्ቑका 6 के ्ቚाव=ान अनुसार दिनयमानुसार जांच कर गणना दिकया जाये। त6ा खसरा कमांक 732 रकबा 0-053 हे० नेशनल हाईवे से लगा हुआ नहीं है। ्ቚकरण में संल्ሿ ्ቚप्ቔ 10 के अनुसार कमांक 54 में ख.नं. 732 को िሺसतिचत भूदिम मानकर गणना दिकया गया है। जिजससे िሺसतिचत भूदिम ्ቚमाणिणत होता है त6ा ्ቚारूप तीन के सबं= में उपबं= दिनयम 7 कति्ቑका 6 के ्ቚाव=ान अनुसार दिनयमानुसार जांच कर मुआवजा शाणिश का गणना दिकया जाये त6ा संशोति=त भूअज�न अति=दिनयम 2013 की =ारा 38 के्ቚ

¶32

ाव=ान ्ቚभादिवत भूदिम स्वामी को सम्पूण� ्ቚतितकर रकम त6ा पुन�वास सोलेणिशयम त6ा पुन�व्यवस्6ापन की रकम (हकदारी) पूण� भुगतान उपरान्त ्ቚभादिवत भूदिमस्वामी से कब्जा ले सकेंगे। आज दिदनांक 13/11/2017 को मेरे हस्ता्ቌर एवं सील मुहर से उपरो्ሹानुसार आदेश जारी दिकया गया।'’

¶33

5

¶34

7. Perusal of order-sheets of said Appeal Case No.89/A-82/2016-17 (Annexure A/10) of Arbitrator/Upper Commissioner, Bilaspur Division, Bilaspur which has been filed by the appellant shows that Arbitrator/Upper Commissioner does not have knowledge about due procedure of principle of natural justice and due opportunity of hearing has not been provided to both the parties before passing award/order dated 13.11.2017. Annexed ordersheets shows that Arbitrator/Upper Commissioner has never sent notices to the non-applicants for their appearance and enabling them to file their reply to the application filed by the appellant/applicant (land owner). Rather he only called report from Revenue Authorities and National Highways and on the basis of the said reports passed impugned award dated 13.11.2017 (Annexure A/10), whereas, it ought to have ensured their presence and after getting them opportunity to file reply/written statement award must have been passed. Since, Arbitrator/Upper Commissioner without following principle of natural justice has passed the award dated 13.11.2017, therefore, vide impugned order dated 25.03.2025 (Annexure A/1), 3^rd District Judge, Janjgir, District Janjgir-Champa has set-aside the impugned award. Further, if impugned order is kept as it is, then appellant/applicant herein would be deprived from fruits granted by the Arbitrator/Upper Commissioner vide order dated 13.11.2017 (Annexure A/10).

¶35

6

¶36

8. In view of the above, no fruitful purpose would served to keep pending the instant appeal, hence, with the consent of learned counsel for both the parties, this arbitration appeal is allowed without going into the merits of the case and award dated 13.11.2017 (Annexure A/10) passed by the Arbitrator/Upper Commissioner, Bilaspur Division, Bilaspur in Appeal Case No.89/A-82/2016-17 (Annexure A/10) and impugned order dated 25.03.2025 passed by 3^rd District Judge, Janjgir, District JanjgirChampa in Miscellaneous Civil Case No.25/2019 (Annexure A/1) are set-aside and this appeal is disposed of granting liberty to the appellant herein to file application afresh under Section 3G(5) National Highways Act, 1956, before the competent Arbitrator/Commissioner, who shall, inturn decide the matter afresh strictly in accordance with law, after affording due opportunity of hearing to all the parties concerned including National Highways, within a period of 90 days from the date of filing of such application.

¶37

9. It is further directed that if upon hearing both the parties, the Arbitrator/Commissioner is of the view that the amount of compensation requires fresh determination, such compensation shall be determined by the Arbitrator/Commissioner, himself, in terms of Section 3G(5) National Highways Act, 1956.

¶38

10. At last, this Court express serious concern to the fact that in numerous arbitration proceedings, the Arbitrator/Commissioner

¶39

7

¶40

concerned have consistently failed to observe the due procedure of law, including the mandatory requirements of affording an opportunity of hearing, by service of notice, etc. to the parties in accordance with the relevant statutory laws/rules prior to passing of award. Such procedural irregularities not only creates hardship to the parties concerned but also unnecessarily kills precious time of Upper Court(s), therefore, it is expected from the learned State counsel appearing before this Court to enlighten Arbitrator/Commissioner with the aforesaid concern of this Court, so that precious time of Court(s) can be saved.

¶41

11. With aforesaid observation and direction, this Arbitration Appeal is disposed of.

¶42

Sd/- (Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi)

¶43

Judge

¶44

Ravi Mandavi

Sharda Charan v. Chief Engineer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sharda Charan v. Chief Engineer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ghasiyaram Vs Yadram

(Deleted) Smt. Shyam Bai Panika (Died) Through LRs. Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Ramkali Vs Fekan Bai

Sagir Siddiqui Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Narayan Kumar Sahu Vs the State of Chhattisgarh

Dr. R.K. Sanklecha Vs the State of Chhattisgarh