w«w^^'^"-- "1^ I& 1BE HJGH COURT OF JUDi.CA®JR2_a£_<Ji^M'@ff rf W«P. No.^Otj^ Of 99 pETZTXQi'ER, s- 1» Beduram S/o Jagatram^ a^d GO y^s^ Cultivator, R/o Village Janjgiri^ Tahsil Ifaamdha, Distt RJRG M.P, ^^' 2<»%akur Laomiinar^-aR Swanii Masndxr %rou.gfa P.%si<3©ntThakar Chatur Singh, Araaypara, R&3:PUS. / r ^r e r s 11 s s- RESPOKDEKSSj^. l.8tate of Madhya Pradesh, through the ^acr^.tary^ Revenue Department^ Sta-fce of M.g., Vall33h Bhawan, Bhopal M-P, 2»(^oramissioner Raipur Division^ »<s' Raipur 3.Collector ; ^SS 4<L^id'Acqu^sition Officsr- csim Sub. Divisional Officer, GJRG M.p, PSTJ2IOE UNDER ARSICLE 556/557 .OP '.iBS CONS '1?.C£UTJX)N QF-EDte« ^ -.i~>^ys .'<Q C7 i:^^^s ;r^° j-^^^.^^^ ^^•--- ^.-.—^^ --^^ HiGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WRIT PETITION N0. 2040 OF 1999 Petitioner Beduram & another Versus Respondents State of Chhattisgarh & Others WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226/227 OF THE CONSTITUTiON OF INDIA (SB : Hon'ble Mr. Satish K. Agnihotri, J.) Present:- Shri Shashank Thakur, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri M.P.S.Bhatia, Dy. Govt, Advocate forthe State:. /ORDER{ORAD (Passed on 09th day of September, 2010) 1. By this petjtion, the petitioners seek a direction to the Collector, Durg, who passed an award acquiring the land of the petitioners under joint Bhoomiswami of Khasra No.690 area 24.90 decimal and Khasra No. 6.92 area 8.18 decimal, at viilage Janjgiri, District Durg. 2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the land originally belongs to Jagatram. The above-stated land was ancestral land In the name of Jagatram and after his death the petitioner No.1 being son of Jagatram has fited this petition. 3. Learned counseS for the petitioner relies on the document (Annexure P-3), whereunder Lakhan, Govind, Jagatram and Gokul etc. Bhoomiswami of village Janjgiri, whose lands have been acquired, were directed to collect the compensationas determined under the provisions of Section 11 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, in award dated ?.1.1998. The petitioner further submits that the land has been acquired under award dated 2.1.1998 and the petitioner being legal helr of Jagatram has not made any appiication to the Coliector for referring the mater to the District Judge for enhancement of the compensation. Thus, the petitioner m ^^ N» 6. 7. is entitled to the compensation whatever has been awarded in his favour. The petitioner places reliance of Mukhtiyarnama (Annexure P-4) showing his ownership on the land in dispute. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the State respondent in its return dated 6.9.1999 has taken a stand that though the compensatlon has been determined in respect of the iand betonging to Lakhan, Govind, Jagatram and Gokul, however, no document has been produced to establish the fact that the petitioner is son of Jagatram. On this.ground alone, the petitioner has been deprived of benefit of compensation as awarded to the land belonging to the father of the petitioner. Learned counse! further submits that since it was Charagah, even if it is owned by Jagatram and his family, they are not entitled for compensation. The contenticn of the learned counsel appearing for the respondent is without any basis and deserves to be rejected. Ifthe title of the family of Jagatram is established, the petitioner cannot be denied compensation after passing of the award on this ground, which was neither taken at the stage of determination of the compensation or at prior stage of determination of the compensation. The petitioner further relies on letter dated 4.8.2007 written by the Collector to the Secretary to the Government, Revenue Department, wherein the Collector has sought advise from the Secretary to the Government that the compensation may be distributed to the land holders recorded in the revenue records. It is a trite law that the determination and payment of compensation is always done on the basis of revenue records. The iand holders, who are recorded as land owners in the revenue records, are entitled to the compensation. The authorities cannot ask the land owners to seek a ^.? '^-'*.->'" -v.^ %^^^^ te£s:^^^ ^<^^^,r^ ashok 3 declaration from any other Court or other authorities to the effect that they are title holders in case of determination and payment of compensation. 8. Thus, the contention as aforesaid made by the learned counsel is not in accordance with iaw. Once the compensation has been determined and award has been passed, the land owners who have not made an application referring to the District Judge Tor enhancement of the compensation, must be paid compensation immediately on the basis of the revenue records. The compensation must be paid before taking over possesslon of the land, which is the subject matter of the award. The State, being a welfare State, is expected to be extra vigilant in making payment of legally admissible compensation to the land owners, who have been deprived oftheir land long back in the year 1990. 9. Accordingly, the petition is allowed. The petitloners, if produce revenue records to establish their ownership on the land in dispute, are entitled to compensation as determined in the award w.e.f. from the date of taking over the possession with interest @ 9% till the payment is made. 10. There shall be no order asto costs. Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge