Smt. Kalavati Gupta Vs State of Chhattisgarh

¶1

1 / 7

CGHC010057952020

2026:CGHC:27840

NAFR

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶6

PAWAN KUMAR JHA Digitally signed by PAWAN KUMAR JHA

¶7

WPC No. 805 of 2020

¶8

Smt. Kalavati Gupta W/o Late Fagu Prasad Gupta Aged About 51 Years R/o House No. 12 Sahu Rice Mill Para, Village- Singarbhat, Tahsil Kanker, District- North Bastar Kanker, Chhattisgarh., District : Kanker, Chhattisgarh

¶9

... Petitioner

¶10

versus

¶11

State Of Chhattisgarh Thorugh The Secretary, Department Of Revenue, Mantralya, Naya Raipur, District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh.

¶12

Collector-Cum-Officiating Dy Secretary (In Land Acquisition Matter), Raipur, District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh.

¶13

SDO-Cum-Land Acquisition Abhanpur (Performed The Duties Of A Collector In The Matter Of Land Acquisition Matter), Tahsil- Abhanpur, District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh.

¶14

	... Respondents
For Petitioner	: Mr. Sanjay Kumar Agrawal, Advocate
For Respondents-State	: Mr. Malay Jain, Panel Lawyer

¶15

Hon'ble Shri Parth Prateem Sahu, Judge

¶16

ORDER ON BOARD

¶17

06/07/2026

¶18

Petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking following reliefs.

¶19

“10.1 That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondents to produce the entire original land acquisition records.

¶20

10.2 That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash the order dated 12.07.2019 (Annexure P-7) passed by the SDO, Abhanpur.

¶21

10.3 That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent State to pay

¶22

2 / 7

¶23

interest on the compensation amount from the date of passing the award till its disbursement.

¶24

10.4 That, this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to pass any other relief that this Hon’ble Court may please deem fit and proper.”

¶25

Learned counsel for petitioner submits that the land bearing Khasra No. 411 & 410/3 situated at village Parsatti, P.H.No. 136/15, Revenue Circule-Abhanpur, Tahsil-Abhanpur, District-Raipur was initially recorded in the name of Late Fagu Prasad Gupta, husband of petitioner. Land acquisition proceeding was drawn by respondent-State in the year 2011 and notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (henceforth referred to as “Act of 1894”) was issued on 16.09.2011, it was published on 24.09.2011. After completion of land acquisition proceeding, the Land Acquisition Officer-cum-SDO passed an award on 22.07.2013. It is contention of learned counsel for petitioner that late Fagu Prasad Gupta was residing at Kanker on the date of initiation of land acquisition proceeding, he was not made aware by issuing notice under Section 12(2) of the Act of 1894 at any point of time. Copy of notice under Section 12(2) dated 04.06.2014 (Annexure P-8) which is enclosed along with writ petition was in fact is not a notice received by late Fagu Prasad Gupta. It is copy of notice which petitioner obtained from the office of Land Acquisition Officer in a proceeding of the award of interest on application filed by petitioner, wherein copy of notice was filed by respondent No. 2. From perusal of the said notice, Annexure P-8, would also reveal that there is no signature of late Fagu Prasad Gupta but the signature which is reflecting beside the seal of Tahsildar, Abhanpur appears to be of some Patel dated 05.07.2014. He also contended that after passing of the award late Fagu Prasad Gupta died on 20.08.2014. Petitioner who is

¶26

3 / 7

¶27

widow of late Fagu Prasad Gupta got knowledge of fact of land acquisition proceeding when the persons engaged by petitioner for taking care of agricultural field of Khasra numbers as mentioned above had informed that the possession are being taken of the land on the ground that the land had already been acquired by the State authorities and thereafter petitioner has obtained the relevant documents. He contented that when once the award is passed on 22.07.2013 no notice under Section 12(2) of the Act of 1894 was issued, petitioner is entitled for the interest from the date of award till the date of disbursement of compensation to petitioner. He also referred that according to the provisions under Section 34 of the Act of 1894, the respondents-authorities are duty bound to pay the interest @ 9% p.a. for the first year and thereafter @15% p.a. till the date of payment. He contended that amount of compensation has been paid to petitioner in October, 2018.

¶28

Learned State counsel opposes the submission of learned counsel for petitioner and would further submit that the application filed by petitioner before the Land Acquisition Officer claiming interest on the compensation awarded on 22.07.2013 has been considered elaborately and rejected by reasoned and speaking order. He contended that submission of learned counsel for petitioner that the petitioner is entitled for interest from the date of award is not sustainable in view of the specific provision under Section 34 ie., the interest is to be awarded from the date of compensation. He submits that in the application submitted before the SDO(R.), it is petitioner herself who made pleadings with regard to possession of the land, subject matter of the acquisition proceeding, has been taken over by

¶29

4 / 7

¶30

the respondents-authorities in March, 2016 and thereafter if at all the interest can be claimed by petitioner then it can be from the date of possession only. He further submits that in the case at hand, respondents have specifically pleaded that the delay is caused at the instance of petitioner as petitioner has not submitted appropriate document(s) for disbursement of compensation which was due on account of acquisition of the land recorded in the name of her late husband Shri Fagu Prasad Gupta.

¶31

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

¶32

It is not in dispute that the land recorded in the name of late Fagu Prasad Gupta bearing Khasra No. 411 & 410/3 was acquired by the respondents under the land acquisition proceedings which was initiated in the year 2011. It is also not in dispute that award was passed on 22.07.2013.

¶33

From the documents enclosed along with writ petition, more specifically the application submitted before the SDO(R.), it is pleadings of petitioner therein that she came to know about the land acquisition proceeding when possession of the land was taken by the respondents-authorities in the month of March, 2016. From the aforementioned facts, it is apparent that possession of the land, subject matter of acquisition, recorded in the name of late Fagu Prasad Gupta was taken only in the month of March 2016. The claim of petitioner is of entitlement of interest under Section 34 of the Act of 1894. Provision of Section 34 which is relevant in the facts of the case is extracted below for ready reference.

¶34

5 / 7

¶35

“ 34. Payment of interest.- When the amount of such compensation is not paid or deposited on or before taking possession of the land, the Collector shall pay the amount awarded with interest thereon at the rate of [nine per centum] [Substituted by Act 68 of 1984, Section 20, for "six per centum" (w.e.f. 24.9.1984).] per annum from the time of so taking possession until it shall have been so paid or deposited:

¶36

[Provided that if such compensation or any part thereof is not paid or deposited within a period of one year from the date on which possession is taken, interest at the rate of fifteen per centum per annum shall be payable from the date of expiry of the said period of one year on the amount of compensation or part thereof which has not been paid or deposited before the date of such expiry.] [Inserted by Act 68 of 1984, Section 20 (w.e.f. 24.9.1984).]”

¶37

Perusal of afore-extracted provision would show that claim of interest by a person whose land was acquired is from the date of taking possession of the land where the amount is not paid or deposited in the Court.

¶38

In the case at hand, admittedly the amount so computed by the Land Acquisition Officer was not paid to the land owner or the petitioner and it is also not in dispute that the amount is not deposited with the Court in terms of Section 31 of the Act of 1894. In the aforementioned facts of the case, in the opinion of this Court, Section 34 of the Act of 1894 is attracted.

¶39

The defense which is taken by the respondent-State that petitioner is not entitled for the interest as claimed, is that the delay occurred because of act of petitioner herself. From the proceedings which are placed on record, it is apparent that the petitioner has submitted application before the SDO-cum-Land Acquisition Officer on 07.06.2016 requesting to disburse the amount of compensation so

¶40

6 / 7

¶41

computed and awarded, however, in the reply respondent-State has not enclosed any document to show as to when the SDO or any other authority had asked the petitioner to submit the requisite documents for disbursement of the amount of compensation. Respondent-State has only filed the Ikrarnama and the other documents submitted by petitioner on 11.09.2018. From the aforementioned facts of the case itself, it cannot be said that the petitioner had taken long time to submit requisite documents from the date, when the concerned authority has asked the petitioner to deposit the same. In absence of any such proceeding drawn by the Land Acquisition Officer and any documents placed before the respondents-authorities to show that the petitioner was asked to submit any such documents for disbursement of the amount of compensation, in the facts of case, submission of learned State counsel that the delay occurred in payment of compensation is attributed to petitioner herself is not sustainable.

¶42

However, according to provision of Section 31 of the Act of 1894, if for any reason, the amount of compensation is not disbursed by the Land Acquisition Officer to land oustee then it has to be deposited with the Court, which has also not been done. The SDO while considering the application for grant of interest has passed the order Annexure P-7 dated 12.07.2019 rejecting the same only on the ground that the notice was sent and it was served on 05.07.2014 which from the face of the copy of notice which is enclosed along with writ petition and not disputed by the State counsel, it nowhere mentions signature of late Fagu Prasad Gupta or the petitioner as from perusal of signature it is appearing that it is signed by a person with surname Patel. The SDO in the order has not recorded that after filing of this application it is the

¶43

7 / 7

¶44

petitioner who caused delay in submitting requisite documents. In reply the respondents have not denied the pleading that the possession of the land was taken in March 2016 is not specifically denied and hence it is to be presumed that the said fact was admitted by respondents and therefore also the reply submitted/ defense taken in the reply by the State is not sustainable and therefore petitioner has made out a case for award of the interest under Section 34 of the Act of 1894.

¶45

From the pleadings made in the application submitted before the SDO, Annexure P-4, that possession has been taken in the month of March 2016 and therefore petitioner is entitled for interest from the month of April 2016 till the date of actual payment. Provision under Section 34 of the Act of 1894 provides for interest on sum due @ 9% p.a. to be paid from the date of awarding of compensation for first year and thereafter @ 15% after expiry of one year till the date of payment of compensation or deposit of amount of compensation. Therefore, the petitioner is held entitled for the interest @ 9% p.a. from April 2016 till March, 2017 and from April, 2017 petitioner will be entitled for interest @ 15% p.a. till the date of payment of the amount of compensation. It is ordered accordingly.

¶46

For the foregoing discussion, order Annexure P-7 dated 12.07.2019, passed by SDO(R.), Abhanpur, is quashed and Respondents No. 2 & 3 are directed to pay the amount of interest on the amount of compensation paid to petitioner as observed and directed above.

¶47

Writ petition is accordingly allowed .

¶48

Sd/-

¶49

(Parth Prateem Sahu)

¶50

JUDGE

¶51

pwn

Smt. Kalavati Gupta v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Kalavati Gupta 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

Son Sai Vs Smt. Chandan Sanjay Tripathi

Dayal Kumar Udasi Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Urmila Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Badri Prasad Vs Government of India

Mohammad Khaliq Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Manendra Kumar Gangber Vs Indian Oil Corporation Limited