Kiran Devi Agrawal Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Kiran Devi Agrawal W/o Rambhagat Agrawal, Aged About 60 Years R/o. Naya Talab, Gudhiyari, Kanhaiyalal Bajari Ward No. 8, Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh.

¶10

... Petitioner

¶11

versus

¶12

State of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Public Works Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Capital Complex, Atal Nagar, New Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh,

¶13

Executive Engineer, Public Works Department, Vidhan Sabha Division Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh

¶14

Collector (Land Acquisition Branch), Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh

¶15

Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue)-Cum-Land Acquisition Officer, Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh.

¶16

... Respondents

¶17

For Petitioner : Mr. Anurag Singh with Ms. Shivangi Agrawal, Advocates

¶18

For Respondents : Ms. Shailja Shukla, Government Advocate

¶19

SB: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Parth Prateem Sahu

¶20

Order on Board

¶21

17/07/2026

¶22

Petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking following relief:-

¶23

2

¶24

“1. That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to writ/writs, order/orders, direction/directions and the respondents may kindly be directed to purchase the land of the petitioner bearing Khasra No. 70/1 area 0.024 hectare, Khasra No. 36/6 area 0.040 hectare, Khasra No. 36/10 area 0.006 hectare, total 0.007 hectare, as per the Purchase of Land on Consent Policy, 2016 and they may further be directed to pay the amount of compensation in the shape of the amount of consideration of the sale deed.

¶25

That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to writ/writs, order/orders, direction/directions and if the respondents are not ready to purchase the land of the petitioner under the Purchase Policy of 2016 then they may be directed to acquire the land of the petitioner bearing Khasra No. 70/1 area 0.024 hectare, Khasra No. 36/6 area 0.040 hectare, Khasra No. 36/10 area

¶26

0.006 hectare, total 0.007 hectare, in accordance with law i.e. as per Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act 2013 along with the interest.

¶27

That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to grant any other relief (s), which is deemed fit and proper in the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case.”

¶28

Learned counsel for petitioner submits that petitioner is recorded owner of land bearing Khasra Nos.70/1, 36/6, 36/10 area 0.024, 0.040 and 0.007 hectare respectively situated in village Khairkhunt Tehsil Tilda District Raipur. Aforementioned land was coming in the way of widening of road from Dharsiva

¶29

Kura -Sungera – Lakha – Bhumiya – Pandarbhatta -

¶30

3

¶31

Kharkhunt-Bherwa. The State Government has given proposal to petitioner for acquiring aforementioned land under the scheme known as “Aapsi Sahmati se Bhumi Kray Niti 2016’ (henceforth ‘the Policy of 2016’). Land acquisition proceedings were initiated by the Land Acquisition Officer, amount of compensation with respect to aforementioned land recorded in the name of petitioner is computed as Rs.4,72,500/-. After drawing proceeding by the Land Acquisition Officer, the case was forwarded to the Collector for execution of sale deed in respect of of private lands. The office of Collector vide letter dated 16.10.2017 informed the petitioner that aforementioned land is to be purchased for a sum of Rs.3,50,000/-. However, even after lapse of long time, sale deed was not executed and amount so computed to compensate the petitioner has not been paid. Therefore, this writ petition is filed. He contended that petitioner was not paid suitable amount of compensation at that relevant point of time i.e. in the year 2017, and as of now the value of money as inflated as also rate of property, therefore, respondents be directed to initiate acquisition proceeding under the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in the Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 or to pay the amount of compensation pursuant to execution of sale deed as per rate prevailing as on date.

¶32

4

¶33

Learned Government Advocate appearing on behalf of respondents would oppose the submissions of learned counsel for petitioner and submit that in the reply it is specifically pleaded that sale deed could not be executed at relevant point of time because the land recorded in the name of petitioner and subject matter of proceeding of the Land Acquisition Officer, was not found fit for acquisition / registration of sale deed. She further submits that respondents in the reply have further pleaded that they are ready to pay compensation to petitioner so determined vide Annexure P-3 after following due process of law and in accordance with the provisions in the Policy of 2016. She further contended that lands affected by construction of road were computed compensation to be paid under the Policy of 2016, as is reflecting from Memo dated 13.8.2018 (Annexure R-1). She also contended that one land recorded in the name of husband of petitioner was also purchased under the Policy of 2016; land of petitioner is also proposed to be purchased under the said policy at Rs.8,82,312/-, as mentioned in Memo dated 22.10.2018.

¶34

At this stage, learned counsel for petitioner would submit that with respect to other land recorded in the name of petitioner used by respondents and amount is not paid nor sale deed is

¶35

5

¶36

executed, a separate writ petition bearing WPC No.3840/2021 is pending consideration.

¶37

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents annexed along with writ petition including the Policy of 2016.

¶38

It is not in dispute that the land bearing Khasra Nos.70/1, 36/6, 36/10, which are forming part of acquisition proceeding drawn by the Land Acquisition Officer, are recorded in the name of petitioner. Land acquisition proceeding was also initiated under the Policy of 2016 and after computing the amount of compensation, the Land Acquisition Officer has forwarded the case to the Collector for its approval so that sale deed be executed under the Policy of 2016 and consideration of sale deed be paid to respective land owners. This proceeding of Land Acquisition Officer is dated 5.6.2018. The Collector vide letter dated 16.10.2017 has intimated the petitioner that the State Government wanted to purchase the land, as mentioned therein, for consideration of Rs.3,15,000/-.

¶39

From the documents, as placed by learned counsel for respective parties, it is apparent that petitioner was agreed to accept the said amount offered by the Collector in its letter dated 16.10.2017. However, respondent authorities had neither paid the compensation/consideration nor executed sale deed and the petitioner was dispossessed from the land

¶40

6

¶41

prior to the said date by using the land of petitioner for widening of road.

¶42

Though, in the reply filed on behalf of respondent State, it is pleaded that land recorded in the name of petitioner was not found fit for acquisition / registration of sale deed under the Policy of 2016, there is no mention of any specific reason/cause explaining why land recorded in the name of petitioner and utilized by respondent for construction of road, was not found fit for acquisition / registration of sale deed. No document in this regard has been annexed along with reply.

¶43

In Para-9 of the reply, it has been pleaded that respondents are ready to pay compensation so determined vide Annexure P-3 after following due process of law and the provisions contained in the Police of 2016, meaning thereby, today respondent authorities are ready to purchase the same land of petitioner but on the rate as mentioned in Annexure P-3. IN this paragraph also respondents have not made any specific averment as to what are the changed circumstances in which now they are ready to purchase the same land which was earlier found unfit for acquisition/registration of sale deed.

¶44

From the aforementioned facts, it is apparent that respondent State though used the land recorded in the name of petitioner and dispossessed her without making payment of compensation by any mode, either through land acquisition

¶45

7

¶46

proceeding under the Act of 2013 or the Policy of 2016. This action on the part of respondent State is highly arbitrary.

¶47

Clause 4 of the Policy of 2016, which is placed before this Court for perusal, is relevant in the facts of the case where the claim of petitioner is that in case respondents want to purchase the land today, they can purchase the same but on the current market value of the land, is material and the same is extracted herein below:-

¶48

“4.भू�-धा�रक क� नि�जी� भू�नि� क्रय निकए जी�� क� नि��क क� कले�क्टर द्वा�र� जी�र� क� गई ग�ईड ले�ई� क� तत्स�य प्रभू�वशी�ले �र क� अ�#स�र स�गनि$त भू�नि� क� ��ल्य और भू�नि� पर स्थि)त )�वर क� र�निशी प्रनितफले परिरसम्पत्ति/य0 क� ��ल्य बर�बर (consideration) क� रूप �3 ��कर क्रय क� जी�एग� ।“

¶49

Bare perusal of above quoted clause would show that it specifically provides that rate as mentioned in the guidelines issued by the Collector on the date of purchase of private land to be considered for payment of consideration under the sale deed against private land to be purchased.

¶50

In the Policy of 2016 it is specifically mentioned that rate applicable would be on the date of purchase. Hence, submission made by learned State Counsel that the respondent State is ready to execute sale deed in favour of petitioner under the Policy of 2016 and to purchase the land, subject matter of writ petition, according to the rate mentioned

¶51

8

¶52

in Annexure P-3, is not sustainable because said assessment of value of land is of the year 2017.

¶53

The Policy of 2016 can be invoked only when both the parties consents for transaction, as is clear from the name of the policy i.e. “ vkilh lgefr ls Hkwfe dz; uhfr 2016 “ (2016 Land Purchase Policy by Mutual Consent).

¶54

Respondent State will not be permitted to blow hot & cold at the same breathe. When once respondent State has declared that the land recorded in the name of petitioner is not found fit for acquisition or registration, although utilized the same for widening of road, after lapse of more than 08 years, they cannot be permitted to come and say now that they are ready to purchase the land at the rate prevailing in the year 2017. During these years, the price index and inflation have skyrocketed. If the amount of compensation/ consideration computed was paid to the petitioner in the year 2017, she could have invested the same and invested value could have also increased. Therefore, keeping in mind this aspect, I am not inclined to accept submission of learned State Counsel that respondent State is ready to purchase the land of petitioner on the value which was assessed in the year 2017, when petitioner is willing to sell his land on the Collector’s rate prevailing on the date of purchase.

¶55

9

¶56

For the foregoing discussions, this writ petition is allowed. Respondent State is directed to compute the amount of sale consideration payable to petitioner under the Policy of 2016 strictly as per Clause 4 of the Policy of 2016, that is to say, on the basis of present market value of the land, subject matter of writ petition and further amount as per Clause (5) and other clauses of the Policy of 2016 within 04 months. If respondent State is not ready to purchase the land according to Clause 4 and other clauses of the Policy of 2016, then to initiate land acquisition proceeding under the Act of 2013 and to conclude the same within a period of 06 months from the date of receipt of this order.

¶57

Certified copy as per rules.

¶58

Sd/-

¶59

(Parth Prateem Sahu) Judge

¶60

roshan/-

Kiran Devi Agrawal v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

Kiran Devi 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

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Jaspal Singh Vs Bank of Maharashtra

Lal Bahadur Rajput (Died and Deleted) through Lrs Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Smt. Tej Kumari Sahu Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Amar Sai Vs Gaurav Kumar Singh

Dharmchand Parakh Vs the Central Information Commissioner

Krishna Kumar Prajapati Vs State of Chhattisgarh