N- HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE ATBILASPUR. CHHATTISGARH SINGLE BENCH: HON'BLE SHRI S.R. NAYAK, CJ. WRIT PETITION N0.4694 OF 2000 PETITIONER Smt. Sheela Devi w/o Mohan Singh Aged 52 yeais, Cultivator of village - Saja, Tah.Saja, Distt. Durg (M.P.). Resident of - Raj FamilyKhairagarh, Tah. Khairagarh, Distt. Rajnandgaon (MP) Vs. RESPONDENT 1. StateGovt. of M.P. Through .'The Secretary Public Works Deptt. (B&R) Vallabh Bhawan, Bhopal. 2. The Commissioner, Raipur Division, Raipur. 3. Collector, Durg (M.P.) (Land Acquisition Section) 4. Executive Engineer, P.W.D. (B&R) Durg. Present: Shri Ajay Shrivastava, leam^d counsei for the petitioner. Shri Yashwant Singh, learned G.A. for the State. ORALORDER (Passed on 3ra April, 2006) The grievance ofthe petitioner is that 1.40acre8 of land comprised in Survey No.1108 of village Saja, Tahsil Saja, District Durg which tand is hereinafter referred to as the "schedule land", was acquired by the State in exercise of its eminent domain of power for a public purpose, to wit, for construction of road by initiating proceedings under the provisions of Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short the Act). After issuing Section 4(1) Notification and Section 6 Declaration, the Land Acquisition OfRcer having conducted award enquiry, passed the award for compensation of Rs.12,67,567/- with interest at 12% from 15.12.1995tillthe date of the award. However, in terms of the award, compensaUon was not paid jto the <. ^ \ „....^. .L^_ / "K ^ ^ -^ petitioner by the Land Acquis'rtion Officer on the ground that the award passed by the Land Acquisition Officer is not approved by the Commissioner for Revenue on the ground that the land was acquired for relief work, therefore, no compensation need be paiti. The reason given by the Commissioner, if 1 may say so, reflecls perversity in reasoning and not at all tenable. There is no dispute between the parties that the land of the petitioner was acquired under the Act and the Land Acquisition Officer having conducted award enquiry passed the award. The petitioner-owner who has lost the land is required to be compensated in tenns of the Act. Even assuming that the land of the petitioner was acquired and used in order to provide employment to the unemptoyed youth or peraons in the viilage, as a sociat welfare measure, ttiat fact would not deprive the petitioner from claiming compensation for the land lost by him. (2) In the result, 1 allow the writ petition with cosls and quash Annexure-P/8. A direction shall issue to the respondents to pay compensation to the petitioner forthwith in terms of the award dated 22.08.1996 (Annexure-P/7) passed by the Land Acquisition Officer. Advocate's fee is fixed at Rs.1,500/-. ,_ - / Sd/- Chief Justice i(!ij ^il : [