Vikas Agrawal Vs State of Chhattisgarh

¶1

1

¶2

2025:CGHC:17592-DB

¶3

NAFR

¶4

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶5

WA No. 245 of 2025

¶6

Vikas Agrawal S/o Shri Mahadeo Prasad Agrawal Aged About 33 Years R/o Old Sadar Bazar, P.O. Raigarh, P.S. City Kotwali Raigarh, Tahsil Raigarh, Civil And Revenue District Raigarh, Chhattisgarh Through The Attorney Mahadeo Prasad Agrawal, S/o Late Tarachand Agrawal, Aged About 81 Years, R/o Old Sadarbazar, P.O. Raigarh, P. Su City Kotwali Raigarh, Tahsil Raigarh, Civil And Revenue District Raigarh, Chhattisgarh Pin - 496551

¶7

... Appellant(s)

¶8

versus

¶9

1. State of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Its Revenue Department, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Gate Naya Raipur Capital Complex, P.O. Head Post OfÏce Raipur, Police Station Telibandha, Raipur, Tahsil Raipur, Civil And Revenue Distt. Raipur, Chhattisgarh Pin 492001

¶10

2. Collector Raigarh, P.O. Raigarh, P. Sun City Kotwali Raigarh, Tahsil Raigarh, Civil And Revenue District Raigarh, Chhattisgarh Pin 496551

¶11

3. Land Acquisition OfÏcer/ Sub Divisional OfÏcer Raigarh, P.O. Raigarh, P.Su City Kotwali Raigarh, Tahsil Raigarh, Civil And Revenue District Raigarh, Chhattisgarh Pin 496551

¶12

4. The Executive OfÏcer Kelo Dam Project, Survey Division, Raigarh, P.O. Raigarh, P. Sun City Kotwali Raigarh, Tahsil Raigarh, Civil And Revenue District Raigarh, Chhattisgarh Pin 496551

¶13

5. Tirath Das S/o Garib Das Aged About 60 Years R/o Village Lakha, P.O. Raigarh, P. Sun City Kotwali Raigarh, Tahsil Raigarh, Civil And Revenue District Raigarh, Chhattisgarh Pin 496551

¶14

Digitally signed by BRIJMOHAN BRIJMOHAN MORLE MORLE Date: 2025.04.22 14:22:55 +0530

¶15

2

¶16

6. UCO Bank Branch Brajrajnagar, Po And Ps And Tashil Brajrajnagar, Civil And Revenue District Jharsuguda, Odisha Pin 768223 Through Its Chief Manager

¶17

...Respondent(s)

¶18

For Appellant	: Mr. Rajkamal Singh, through VC and Mr. Suryapratap Yuddhveer Singh, Advocates.
For Respondents/State	: Mr. Sangharsh Pandey, Government Advocate.
For Respondent No. 6	: Mr. P.R. Patankar, Advocate.

¶19

Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Arvind Kumar Verma, Judge Judgment on Board

¶20

Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice

¶21

17.04.2025

¶22

1. Proceedings of this matter have been taken through video conferencing.

¶23

2. Heard Mr. Rajkamal Singh, learned counsel for the appellant through video conferencing along with Mr. Suryapratap Yuddhveer Singh, learned counsel as well as Mr. Sangharsh Pandey, learned Government Advocate, appearing for respondents No. 1 to 3/State and Mr. P.R. Patankar, learned counsel, appearing for respondent No. 6 on I.A. No. 1 of 2025, which is an application for condonation of delay.

¶24

3. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and considering the reasons mentioned in the application, we are of the considered opinion that sufÏcient cause has been shown in the application and accordingly, I.A. No. 1 of 2025 is allowed and delay of 74 days in filing the appeal is condoned.

¶25

3

¶26

4. The present intra Court appeal has been filed by the appellant against the order dated 25.11.2024 passed by the learned Single Judge in WPC No. 1312 of 2013 ( Vikas Agrawal vs. State of Chhattisgarh & Others ), whereby the learned Single Judge has dismissed the writ petition filed by the appellant/writ petitioner herein.

¶27

5. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant is the owner of the diverted land bearing Khasra No. 202/2 area 0.483 Hectares situated in village Lakha of Block, Tahsil & District Raigarh of Chhattisgarh (for short, ‘subject land’) that the said diverted land was purchased by the appellant from the respondent No. 5 vide registered sale deed dated 21.07.2004 registered at No. 1392 of Book No. Addl. 2927 on page 64/69. He also submits that the said land was mutated in records of Diverted Lands in favour of appellant by order dated 18.10.2006 passed by the Superintendent of Land Records (Diverted Lands).

¶28

6. It is further contended by the learned counsel for the appellant that the records should have been corrected by the Revenue Authorities as sooner the land was diverted in the year 2003, but because of their negligence the land still remained in the records of agriculture land and the Khasara Panchshala (Form P-II) & Kishthand Khatauni (Form B-1) those were not corrected despite of the order dated 19.03.2003 passed by the Sub Divisional OfÏcer (Civil), Raigarh, in Revenue Case No. 82/A2/2002-2003 Village: Lakha which ultimately resulted into grave injustice to the appellant. He also contended that when the land was acquired for Kelo Dam Project and despite the knowledge of the appellant’s ownership & the possession with the respondent No. 6; Bank, the compensation was

¶29

4

¶30

arbitrarily, malafidely & illegally paid to the respondent No. 5 in Land Acquisition, Case No. 22/A-82/06-07 committing an egregious fraud & clearly violating the orders passed by this Court in WPC No. 2738 of 2011 that was preferred by the respondent No. 5 himself. Because of above mentioned eventualities, the appellant was forced to prefer the writ petition bearing WPC No. 1312 of 2013 before this Court which remained pending before this Court for almost 12 years and the only issue in the matter was only with regard to the wrong payment of compensation to respondent No. 5 & the effect thereof. But, the learned Single Judge have passed the order which neither correct in law nor on facts by which the appellant has been relegated to seek remedy under section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, ‘Act of 1894’) which has already been repealed by the “Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013”.

¶31

7. Learned counsel for the appellant also relied on the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Popat Rao Vyankat Rao Patil vs. State of Maharashtra , reported in (2020) 19 SCC 242 , wherein it has been held in unambiguous wordings that, “ even if there are disputed questions of facts which fall for consideration, but if they do not require elaborate evidence to be adduced, High Court is not precluded from entertaining a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, however such a plenary power has to be exercised by the High Court in exceptional circumstances. High Court would be justified in exercising such a power to exclusion of other available remedies only when it finds that the action of the state or its instrumentalities is arbitrary & unreasonable and as such violative of article 14, in present case there

¶32

5

¶33

are hardly any disputed questions of facts and the action of authorities smacked of arbitrariness hence High Court erred in relegating appellant to file Suit. ”

¶34

8. Hence, the order passed by the learned Single Judge dated 25.11.2024 is untenable in the eyes of law and deserves to be quashed.

¶35

9. On the other hand, learned State counsel submits that the learned Single Judge after considering all the aspects of the matter has rightly dismissed the writ petition filed by the appellant/writ petitioner, in which no interference is called for. He further submits that the appellant has not filed any objection under Section 9 of the Act of 1894, despite that he was required to file an application under Section 18 of the Act of 1894, which he has not filed. He further contended that there is alternative statutory remedy available to the appellant under Section 18 of the Act of 1894, which he did not avail.

¶36

10. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned judgment and materials available on record.

¶37

11. It would appropriate to notice the provisions contained in Section 18 of the Act of 1894, which reproduced below :-

¶38

“ 18. Reference to Court

¶39

(1)Any person interested who has not accepted the award may, by written application to the Collector, require that the matter be referred by the Collector for the determination of the Court, whether his objection be to the measurement of the land, the amount of the

¶40

6

¶41

compensation, the persons to whom it is payable, or the apportionment of the compensation among the persons interested.

¶42

(2)The application shall state the grounds on which objection to the award is taken: Provided that every such application shall be made,

¶43

(a) if the person making it was present or represented before the Collector at the time when he made his award, within six weeks from the date of the Collectors award;

¶44

(b) in other cases, within six weeks of the receipt of the notice from the Collector under section 12, sub-section(2), or within six months from the date of the Collectors award, whichever period shall first expire. ”

¶45

12. A bare perusal of the provisions contained in Section 18 of the Act of 1894, it is quite clear that if the appellant is aggrieved & dissatisfied with the amount of award passed in favor of any other person, then the appellant, who is actual owner of the subject land, should have approached before the Collector by filing an application under Section 18 of the Act of 1894 for referring the matter, however, the same has not been filed, therefore, learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition filed by the appellant on this ground alone.

¶46

13. However, learned Single Judge granted liberty to the appellant to file appropriate application under Section 18 of the Act of 1894 for

¶47

7

¶48

redressal of his grievances and, in turn, the respondents authorities shall consider and decide the same expeditiously keeping in view the fact that award has been passed way back on 13.07.2009 and the writ petition is lying pending before this Court since more than 10 years, thus, looking to the pendency of the writ petition, the reference petition may be considered and decided expeditiously in accordance with law.

¶49

14. Considering the pleadings made in writ appeal, submissions advanced by the learned counsel appearing for the parties and also considering the findings recorded by the learned Single Judge while dismissing the writ petition filed by the appellant/writ petitioner, we are of the considered opinion that the learned Single Judge has not committed any illegality, irregularity or jurisdictional error warranting interference by this Court.

¶50

15. Accordingly, the present writ appeal being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed .

¶51

Sd/- Sd/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice

¶52

Brijmohan

Vikas Agrawal v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vikas Agrawal v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ram Naresh Vs State Of Chhattisgarh

Keshav Nishad @ Dinesh Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Narendra Kumar Vental Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Kanshinath Sandaliya Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Coal India Ltd. Vs Rahul Jaiswal

Shobhna George Vs Rohit Singh