Disposed¶51

Manharan Verma v. State of Chhattisgarh

Chhattisgarh HC16 Apr 2025WPC/573/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Alienation ban on land near Bharat Mala Project; memorandum dated 24.02.2018 by Collector Durg; 100-meter restriction around affected khasra; NH-53 widening/four-laning Durg-Raipur bypass; National Highways Act 1956 Sections 34(1) and 3D(2); Village Devada, Tahsil Patan, District Durg; NHAI Project Director letter dated 11.04.2025; 20-meter restricted belt; spot inspection direction; lifting of ban; writ petition disposed.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition disposed of with directions to the Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue) and the competent NHAI officer to conduct a spot inspection; if the petitioner's land is found beyond 20 meters of the road as stated in the letter dated 11.04.2025, the ban on the petitioner's land shall be lifted. ¶51

Manharan Verma Vs State of Chhattisgarh — Chhattisgarh HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶51

Issue for consideration

Whether the memorandum dated 24.02.2018 banning sale/registration/alienation of lands within 100 meters of the affected khasra in Tahsils Durg and Patan should be set aside/relaxed so as to permit the petitioner to alienate/exchange his un-acquired land (Khasra No. 421 - 0.0500 ha and Khasra No. 424 - 0.5600 ha, Village Devada, Tahsil Patan, District Durg). +1 more

¶25

Court's answer

The concerned Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue) and the competent Officer of the National Highway Authority of India are directed to make a spot inspection; if the petitioner's land is found away from 20 meters of the road as stated in the letter dated 11.04.2025, the ban imposed in respect of the petitioner's land is to be lifted.

¶50

Ratio / Principle

On perusal of the Project Director's letter dated 11.04.2025, the Court found that purchase/sale, diversion, division etc. of land up to 20 meters on both sides of the affected Khasra in the concerned listed villages stands prohibited until completion of the project, while the issuing office has no objection to removal of such restrictions in the remaining villages.

¶47

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Chhattisgarh, Bilaspur — WPC No. 573 of 2025, decided 17.04.2025 (Amitendra Kishore Prasad, J.). The petitioner, title and possession holder of irrigated agricultural land bearing Khasra No. 421 (0.0500 ha) and Khasra No. 424 (0.5600 ha) at Village Devada, Tahsil Patan, District Durg, challenged the memorandum dated 24.02.2018 (Annexure P/1) passed by the Collector, Durg, banning sale/purchase of the khasra affected by the Bharat Mala Project (NH-53, Km. 24–43.5, Durg Raipur bypass) acquisition under the National Highways Act, 1956 and lands within 100 meters thereof, although the petitioner's own land was not acquired. Placing reliance on the Project Director/NHAI letter dated 11.04.2025 stating that only land up to 20 meters on both sides of the affected khasra need remain unsold until project completion, the Court directed the Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue) and the competent NHAI officer to make a spot inspection and, if the petitioner's land is found beyond 20 meters of the road, to lift the ban on the petitioner's land. Writ petition disposed of accordingly.

¶1

Digitally signed by YOGESH YOGESH TIWARI TIWARI Date:2025.04.22 18:55:09 +0530

2025:CGHC:17745

NAFR

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶6

WPC No. 573 of 2025

¶7

Manharan Verma S/o Shri Ramgulal Verma Aged About 54 Years C/o Through J.K. Verma, Gayatri H.P. Fuels, Village Funda, Post Devada, Tahsil Patan, District : Durg, Chhattisgarh

¶8

... Petitioner

¶9

versus

¶10

1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department of Revenue And Disaster Management, Atal Nagar, Naya Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh.

¶11

2 - The Collector Durg District Durg, Chhattisgarh.

¶12

3 - The Sub Divisional Officer (Rev.) Patan, District Durg, Chhattisgarh.

¶13

4 - The Sub Registrar Patan District Durg, Chhattisgarh.

¶14

5 - National Highway Authority Of India Through Its Project Director, Project Implementation Unit, Abhanpur, Old Mont Fort School Campus Jhhanki-Abhanpur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh.

¶15

... Respondents

¶16

(Cause-title taken from Case Information System)

¶17

For Petitioner	: Mr. Amrito Das and Mr. Mayank Chandrakar, Advocates
For Respondent-State	: Ms. Upasana Mehta, Deputy Government Advocate
For Respondent No.5	: Mr. Himanshu Pandey, Advocate

¶18

¶19

Hon’ble Shri Amitendra Kishore Prasad, Judge

¶20

Order on Board

¶21

17.04.2025

¶22

1 Heard Mr. Amrito Das and Mr. Mayank Chandrakar, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Ms. Upasana Mehta, learned Deputy Government Advocate appearing for the State/respondents No.1 to 4 and Mr. Himanshu Pandey, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.5.

¶23

2 The petitioner has filed this writ petition with the following relief(s):-

¶24

“ 10.1 That, therefore, the petitioner is praying

¶25

for setting aside impugned memorandum dated 24.02.2018 (Annexure P/1) and be pleased to direct the respondents to permit the petitioner to alienate/exchange his land bearing Kha No. 421 area 0.0500 hectare & Kha. No. 424 area 0.5600 Hectare, which is an irrigated agriculture land, situated at Village Devada, P.H.N.-21/19, Tahsil Patan, Ra. Ni. Man. Jamgaon-M, District- Durg (C.G.) as per his own wish.

¶26

10.2 That, this Hon'ble High Court may kindly be pleased set aside impugned memorandum dated 24.02.2018 (Annexure P/1) passed by Respondent no. 2 so far as petitioner is

¶27

¶28

concern and further be pleased to direct the District Collector, Durg (C.G.) to consider the application dated 19.12.2024 for permission to alienate/ exchange and registration of deed of the above land.

¶29

10.3 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 & just in the facts and

¶30

circumstances of the case, including awarding of the costs to the petitioner. ”

¶31

3 Brief facts of the present case, in a nutshell, are that the petitioner is title and possession holder of agriculture land bearing Khasra No.421, area 0.0500 hectares and Khasra No.424, area 0.5600 hectares, which is an irrigated agriculture land, situated at Village Devada, P.H.N.-00021/19 (earlier in B-1 Khasra it has been mentioned only P.H.N. 21), Ra.Ni.Man. Jamgaon-M (Earlier it was mentioned as Bhilai), Tahsil Patan, District Durg (C.G.). The Ministry of Road Transport and Highways had declared an ambitious project namely ‘BHARATMALA PROJECT’. In Chhattisgarh National Highway Number 53 is made part of this project for building (widening/four-laning etc.) maintenance, management and operation of Highway No.53, in stretch of land from Km.24 to Km.43.5 (Durg Raipur By pass) in Durg District,

¶32

¶33

purported land acquisition proceeding under National Highway Act 1956 has been started in the year 2018. On 09.03.2018, first notification under Section 34(1) of National Highways Act, 1956 (for short, ‘NH Act’) was issued and respondent authorities declared its intention to acquire lands. In furtherance, the subsequent notification under section 3D (2) of NH Act 1956 was issued on 06.09.2018 and the land specified in the said Schedule declared vested absolutely in the Central Government, free from all encumbrances. By the said Act, explicit restriction on land use was imposed upon the affected lands. Due to land acquisition for the ‘Bharat Mala Project’ sale and purchase are banned vide impugned memorandum dated 24.02.2018 in Tahsil Durg and Patan of District Durg for the affected lands/Khasra as well as to the extent of 100 meters of other lands from the boundary line of affected lands/Khasra both side. The petitioner's land is situated within the outer limit of 100 meters from the affected land/Khasra, but same has not been acquired for the purpose of construction of above-mentioned road under ‘Bharat Mala Project’ for NHAI.

¶34

4 It is further case of the petitioner that when the petitioner tried to alienate/exchange his property, then this fact first time came into his knowledge that any activities over his land is banned due to impugned memorandum, then he immediately made a representation dated 19.12.2024 before respondent No.2 and prayed for permission to relax the operation and effect of the impugned memorandum, which is unanswered till date and also

¶35

¶36

the other villagers are affected therefore, through farmer association they have prayed for the same.

¶37

5 Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner being the land owner has all the right to enjoy his property/land and no portion of the petitioner's land has been acquired as also the petitioner's land is not concern to any acquisition process and said road is not constructed in any part of the land belonging to the petitioner, as such there is no use to ban the Registry/sale deed or alienation/exchange of the land in above area. He further submits that the operation and effect of the impugned memorandum even after lapse of 7 years is perse illegal, as after conducting survey, the lands needed for construction of the said road project have already been acquired, demarcation of row of the said road has been conclude. It has been contended that the petitioner's land is far away from the row of the road and not included in the survey conducted, as such neither included in any acquisition process nor acquired by the respondent, therefore operation and effect of the impugned memorandum shall be relaxed so far as land belonging to the petitioner. It has been further contended that in the identical matter, this Hon'ble Court has allowed the petition and permitted the petitioner to alienate his property by relaxing the operation and effect of said memorandum to the extent of land belonging to the petitioner vide order dated 17.04.2023 passed in W.P.(C) No. 1753/2023. It has been further argued that in the light of letter issued by the State Government dated 11.04.2025, it has been

¶38

¶39

categorically stated that the land which has been acquired for ‘Bharat Mala Project’, the competent authority i.e. NHAI and the Project Director has stated that only 20 meters of the land adjacent to the road is not required to be sold till the completion of the project and the land of the petitioner is far away from 20 meters and the same is about 70 meters away from the road, which is being constructed under the ‘Bharat Mala Project’ and accordingly, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the authorities may be directed to verify the same and if the land of the petitioner is seems to be 20 meters away from the road, the ban is lifted in respect of the land of the petitioner.

¶40

6 On the other hand, learned State counsel fairly submits that the State will verify the situation and if necessary, they will pass the appropriate orders and if the land of the petitioner is situated away from 20 meters in physical verification, they will pass appropriate orders.

¶41

7 I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents present on the record.

¶42

8 The letter dated 11.04.2025 issued by the Project Director to the concerned Additional Collector, Durg is relevant for the purpose and operative part of which reads as follows:

¶43

"2. उ्ሹ संबंधमेंलेख हैकि�रा्ቖ्रीयराजमा्ቇ�संख्या 53 �े

¶44

(दु्ቇ�-रायपुर-आरंग ͝ बायपास) पै�ेज- एई.पी. सी. मोडमें भारतमाला परिरयोजना�ेअंत्ቇ�तकि�.मी. 0.000 सेकि�.मी.

¶45

¶46

44.500 त��े 4/6 लेनसड़�किनमा�ण�ाय�मेंभूकिम अधिध्ቇहण�ी �ाय�वाही अबत�पूण� नही �ी्ቇ ईहै।साथ हीयहलेखहैकि�अनुकिवभा्ቇ दु्ቇ�अंत्ቇ�त ाम 1. धनौद 2. किपसे्ቇांव 3. चंदखुरी 4. हनोदा 5. धनोरा 6. खम्हरिरया 7. उमरपोटी 8. पुरई 9. बोरी्ቇार�ा 10. उतई एवंअनुकिवभा्ቇ पाटनअंत्ቇ�त्ቇ ाम 1.पतोरा 2. सेलूद 3. पुनईडीह 4. देवादा 5. फुण्डा 6. अरसनाराएवं 7. बठेनामें �ब्जामु्ሹ भूकिम पूण�तासुपुद�नहीं�ी्ቇ ईहै। जो�ीभूकिमअधिध्ቇहण कि9याधीनहोने �े�ारणआप�े ारासंबंधिधत्ቇ ामों�े भाकिवतखसरोंसेदोनोंओर�ी 20 मीटरत��ीभूकिम �ी खरीदीकिब9ी, डायवस�न बटां�न आकिदपरअस्थायी रूपसेपरिरयोजनापूण�होनेत�्ቚ धितबंधिधतकि�याजाना य ቝኌस्थधितमेंउधिचत्ቚ तीतहोताहै।"

¶47

9 From perusal of the letter issued by the Project Director dated 11.04.2025, it transpires that the purchase and sale, diversion, division etc. of land up to 20 meters on both sides of the affected Khasra in the concerned villages should be prohibited till the project is completed. Apart from the above mentioned villages, the said office has no objection in removing the restrictions on purchase, sale, diversion, division of land etc. in the remaining villages.

¶48

10 Considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case, the concerned Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue) as well as competent Officer of the National Highway Authority of India are directed to

¶49

¶50

make spot inspection and if the land of the petitioner is found away from 20 meters of the road, as has been stated in the letter dated 11.04.2025, then the ban which has been imposed in respect of land of the petitioner, be lifted.

¶51

11 With the aforesaid observations/directions, instant writ petition stands disposed of.

¶52

Sd/-

¶53

(Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge

¶54

Yogesh

Manharan Verma v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Manharan Verma 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

Gram Panchayat Bandora Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Radhe Lal Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Smt. Usha Bhuwneshwar Dhiwar Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Smt. Falika Bai Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Ishwari Yadav Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Ritesh Agrawal Vs Prerna Education Society