Babulal Vs Union of India

¶1

1

¶2

NAFR

¶3

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶4

WPC No. 681 of 2021

¶5

1 - Babulal S/o Late Rameshwar Dewangan Aged About 70 Years Resident Of Village Seoni Tehsil Champa, District Janjgir Champa (Chhattisgarh), District : Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh

¶6

2 - Laxmi Prasad @ Rudra Prasad Pandey S/o Late Manharan Aged About 70 Years Resident Of Village Seoni Tehsil Champa, District Janjgir Champa (Chhattisgarh), District : Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh

¶7

3 - Dhaniram S/o Late Shyamlal Aged About 42 Years Resident Of Village Seoni Tehsil Champa, District Janjgir Champa (Chhattisgarh), District : Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh

¶8

4 - Puniram S/o Late Salfaru Aged About 68 Years Resident Of Village Seoni Tehsil Champa, District Janjgir Champa (Chhattisgarh), District : Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh

¶9

5 - Budhram S/o Late Sarhu Aged About 77 Years Resident Of Village Seoni Tehsil Champa, District Janjgir Champa (Chhattisgarh), District : Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh

¶10

... Petitioner(s)

¶11

versus

¶12

1 - Union Of India Through Secretary, Ministry Of Road Transport And Highways Transport Bhawan, 1, New Delhi, District : New Delhi, Delhi

¶13

2 - Project Director National Highway Authority Of India (Nhai) Project Implementation Unit D-61, Hig-1, Abhilasha Parisar Behind New Bus Stand Tifra Bilaspur (Chhattisgarh), District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh

¶14

3 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary Department Of Revenue Mahanadi Bhawan, Raipur District Raipur (Chhattisgarh), District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh

¶15

4 - Collector Champa District - Janjgir-Champa (Chhattisgarh), District : Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh

¶16

-2-

¶17

5 - Sub-Divisional Officer Cum Competent Authority Land Acquisition Champa, District Janjgir Champa (Chhattisgargh), District : Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh

¶18

6 - Inspector General Registration And Superintendent Of Stamp Gst Bhawan, Raipur, District Raipur (Chhattisgarh), District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh

¶19

---- Respondents For Petitioners : Ms. Apurva Nigam, Advocate holding the brief of Mr. K.K.Patel, Advocate For State : Mr. Shubham Bajpayee, PL For Respondent No.1/: Mr. Tushar Dhar Diwan, Central Government Union of India Counsel

¶20

For Respondent No.2 : Mr. Dhiraj Wankhede, Advocate

¶21

Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey

¶22

Order on Board

¶23

09.07.2025

¶24

The petitioners have filed this petition seeking the following

¶25

relief(s):-

¶26

“10.1 That this Hon'ble court kindly be pleased to pass similar order in terms of WA No. 7/2019

¶27

10.2 Any other relief, which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper, may also be passed in favour of the petitioner.”

¶28

Ms. Nigam, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would submit that petitioner No.1 is the owner of the land bearing Survey Nos. 68/1, 69/3, petitioner No.2 is the owner of the land bearing Survey No.1364/3, petitioner No.3 is the owner of the land bearing Survey No.1552/1, petitioner No.4 is the owner of land bearing Survey No.1567, 1572/5 and

¶29

3

¶30

petitioner No.5 is the owner of land bearing Survey No.1338/2 situated at Village Seoni, Patwari Circle No.2, Tehsil-Champa, District Janjgir-Champa (C.G.). She would further submit that the lands of the petitioners were acquired for the construction of National Highway No. 149B and an award was passed on 15.09.2018. She would also submit that proper compensation has not been paid to the petitioners by the respondents. She would contend that the higher extent of land has been compensated with lower compensation as compared to the smaller extent of land. She would further contend that the issue has already been settled in Writ Appeal No.7/2019 vide order dated 06.12.2019 and orders passed in WPC No.2207 of 2020 and Writ Appeal No.423 of 2020. Ms. Nigam would also contend that the alternative remedy is not a bar where there is an error apparent on the face on record, the principles of natural justice have not been complied with and the authority which decided the matter was not competent. She would further argue that the compensation was not assessed by the Land Acquisition Officer strictly in accordance with the existing market value and the applicable rules, therefore, the present petition is maintainable. She has placed reliance on the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Division Bench in the matter of Ashutosh Agrawal and another Vs. Union of India and others and other connected matters , Writ Appeal No.7/2019 .

¶31

-4-

¶32

On the other hand, Mr. Wankhede, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2/National Highways Authority would oppose the submissions made by Ms. Nigam. He would submit that admittedly the petitioners have filed this petition for enhancement of compensation and they have a remedy to prefer an application under the provisions of Section 3G(5) of the National Highways Act, 1956 (for short ‘the Act of 1956’). In support of his submissions, he placed reliance on the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Division Bench in the matter of Balmukund Dewangan and others Vs. State of Chhattisgarh and others and other connected matters, Writ Appeal No.140 of 2022, wherein the judgment passed in the matter of Ashutosh Agrawal and another (supra) was also considered. The Hon’ble Division Bench in para 7 affirmed the order passed by the writ Court whereby, liberty was granted to the land oustees of that case to approach the Arbitrator according to the provisions of Section 3G(5) of the Act of 1956. He would also submit that similar submissions as made by Ms. Nigam were made in the matter of Balmukund Dewangan(supra) in para 7.

¶33

Mr. Bajpayee, learned Panel Lawyer appearing for the State as well as Mr. Diwan, learned counsel appearing for Union of India would support the contentions made by Mr. Wankhede.

¶34

I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and

¶35

5

¶36

perused the documents placed on the record.

¶37

It is not in dispute that there is an efficacious statutory remedy available to the petitioners to approach the Arbitrator according to the provisions of Section 3G(5) of the Act of 1956.

¶38

The Hon’ble Division Bench in the matter of Balmukund Dewangan (supra) after considering the judgment passed in the matter of Ashutosh Agrawal (supra) , affirmed the order passed by the Writ Court and also affirmed the liberty granted to the land oustees to approach the Arbitrator appointed by the Central Government within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of the copy. Concluding para 11 is reproduced herein below:-

¶39

“ 11 .Considering the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties, perusing the impugned orders and other documents and findings recorded by learned Single Judge while disposing of the matters, we are of the considered opinion that learned Single Judge has not committed any illegality, irregularity or jurisdictional error warranting interference by this Court. Even otherwise, learned Single Judge has observed that subject to the petitioners approaching the Arbitrator appointed by the Central Govt. in this regard within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order, the Arbitrator notified shall proceed and decide the matter objectively after due consideration of the claim of petitioners and the grounds raised by them seeking for quashment of the award to the extent of the compensation quantified and the multiplier factor taken into consideration for computation of compensation. As such, the judgment relied upon by the learned counsel for the appellants i.e.

¶40

-6-

¶41

Ashutosh Agrawal (supra) is distinguishable to the facts of the present case.”

¶42

Taking into consideration the fact that there is an efficacious alternative remedy available in favour of the petitioners to approach the Arbitrator under the provisions of Section 3G(5) of the Act of 1956, in my opinion, this petition is not maintainable and is accordingly dismissed. However, the petitioners would be at liberty to approach the Arbitrator within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and in turn, the Arbitrator notified shall proceed and decide the matter objectively after due consideration of the claim of the petitioners and the grounds raised by them.

¶43

Consequently, the present petition is hereby dismissed. No cost(s).

¶44

Sd/-

¶45

(Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge

¶46

Rekha

Babulal v. Union of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Babulal v. Union of India

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

The Chairman And Managing Director Vs The Appellate Authority Under The Payment Of Gratuity Act

Anand Kumar Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Nitesh More Vs Smt. Chanchal More

Bhawarlal Barle Vs Union of India

State Of Chhattisgarh And Ors. Vs Dulichand Lodhi And Anr.

Sunil Tawari Vs Janak Ram Kurre