r^ ^($0 IN THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR W.P.JC) N0. o^'6 f) ^/2011 Petitioner ^ 1. 2. ^' Rajkumar Sahu Aged about 35 years Arvind Sahu Aged about 32 years Both S/o. Shri Ghurai Ram Sahu R/Oo Village: Amandula Tahsil: Malkharoda Dist.: Janjgir-Champa (CG). ^M \^"^ ^y .^y ' <€^'' ^ Respondents : 1. Nanki Dau Chandra S/o. Shri Sant Ram Chandra Aged about 38 years R/o. R/o. Village: Amandula Tahsil: Malkharoda Dist.: Janjgir-Champa (CG). VERS.US State of Chhattisgarh, Through: The Secretary, Department of Water Resources, Mantralaya, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (CG). 2, The Collector, Janjgir-Champa Distt.: Janjgir Champa (CG). /' 3. The Land Acquisition Offlcer, Hasdeo-Bango Dam, Sakti, Dist.: Janjgir-Champa (CG). 4; The Executive Engineer, Minimata Hasdec'-Bango Cansi Sub- Division:10 Malkharoda Dist.: Janjgir-Champa (CG). The. Sub-Divisional Officer, Minimata Bango Canal Sub- Division: 10, Malkharodsi Dist.: Janjgir-Champa (CG). WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226/227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PETmONERS HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR WR!T PETITION (C) N0. 2555 OF 2011 Rajkumar Sahu & Others RESPONDENTS Versus State of Chhattisgsrh & Others (Writ Petition underArticle 226/227 ofthe Constitution of India) Single Bench : Hon'ble Shri Satish K. Agnihotri, J. Present:- Shri H.S.Patel, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri Arun Sao, Government Advocate for the State. Q^RDER (Passed on this 23rd day of Septerrsber, 2011) 1. The petitioner seeks a direction to the respondents to compute and award the compensation against the acquisition :/f portions of their lands from Khasra Nos.688/3, 686/6 & 601 ofthe pel;L^.-iers respectively. 2. The brief facts, in nutshell, as prpjected by the petitioners, are that the petitioners are residents of village - AmandL'Ia, Tahsi! Malkharoda, District- Janjgir-Champa. The petitioners were o'-"ners of the lands, as stated herein : A part of the above stated lands came under submergence in Pota Sendras Miner Canal constructed by the State Government in the year 1999, without acquisition and payment ofcompensation. ^-F^ ^ S.No. Name of Land Owner Khasra No. Total Rakba Portion of Land Submerged 1. Rajkumar / Arvind Sahu 686/3 1.16Acre 0.18Acre 2. Rajkumar / Arvind Sahu 686/6 0.45 Acre 0.20 Acre 3. Nanki Dau Chandra 601 0.70 Acre 0.18Acre ^ ^^ Y.,s^ ^^^•^y" 'J 2 4. ' The petitioners made representation for computation and grant of proper compensation to the authorities time and again and recently on 28.03.2009 (Annexure P-2 colly.). The Collector directed the Land Acquisition Officer/ respondent No.3 vide letter dated 25th April, 2009 to take actions for payment of compensation. Till date, nothing has happened and no compensation has been paid. 5. On the other hand, Shri Sao, learned counsel appearing for the State respondents submits that as per the information, the land of the petitioner No.3 had not come under the submergence. A portion of land in Khasra No.601 and 0.016 acre in Khasra No.600 had come under consideration and there is also a dispute with regard to ownership of the land. So far as the land belonging to petitioner Nos.1 & 2 is concerned, it is submitted that an area of 0.18 acres out of Khasra No.686/3 & 0.12 acres outof Khasra No.686/6 had submerged. It is further submitted that the State has decided to initiate acquisition proceedings by issuing a notification under Section 4 ofthe Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short "the Act, 1894"). 6. Heard learned counsel appearing for the parties, perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto. 7. Article 300A of the Constitution of India was inserted by the Constitution (Forty-fourth Amendment) Act, 1978 (w.e.f. 20th June, 1979), after the fundamental right to property was deleted from the provisions of the Constitution of India. Article 300A provides that no person shall be deprived of his property save by authority of law. The right to property is a constitutional right and the land of the petitioners could not have been taken without following the process of law. The Act, 1894, provides for publication of preliminary notification under section 4 of the Act, 1894, expressing intention of the Government to acquire the land for any public purpose. ,4%, ^T^ l-,:..-.-!^'^ 1 'yys% j 8. *" Section 5A of the Act, 1894, provides for hearing of objections and thereafter publication of declaration of intended acquisition under Section 6 followed by other provisions providing for compensation to be computed and paid in accordance with the provisions of the Act, 1894 and the passing of the award under Section 11. 9. In the case on hand, the petitioners have been deprived of their constitutional right as enshrined under Article 300A of the Constitution of India, since the day, the land came under submergence in the canal constructed by the State Government. The submission of the State counsel that the Government proposes to issue notification would not achieve the full object of the provisions of the Act, as the objection can be raised only in respect of the compensation not any other respects. Thus, it is just and proper to direct the authorities to take immediate steps to compute the compensation amount and pay the interest from the date of possession, till the amount is paid. 10. The Supreme Court in State of Punjab v. Amarjit Singh and Another1 observed as under: "12. Thus a person whose land is acquired is entitled to the following amounts under the Act: (a) xxx xxx xxx (b) xxx xxx xxx (c) xxx xxx xxx (d) Interest on the aggregate of (a), (b) and (c) above for the period between the date of taking possession to the date of payment/deposit at the rate of 9% per annum for the first year and 15% per annum for the remaining periodff 11. It is accordingly ordered that the respondents shall invite objections of the petitioners in respect of the compensation, thereafter, compute the compensation and pay the said compensation with solatium and interest thereon in accordance with law, to the landowners, as early as possible, preferably within a period offour months. 1 (2011)48cc 734 "-i-..;\ ,• ••^•yff.^ 1 12. Having regard to the facts situation of the case, wherein, the petitioners were deprived of their constitutional.rights for a period of about ten years, it is expedient to award a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (One lakh) as cost to each petitioner No.1 & 2 and in case, the land was owned by the petitioner No.3, the same amount shall be paid to the petitioner No.3 also, as cost. 13. In view of foregoing, the petition is allowed to the above-extent. ashok Sd/- SatishK.Agnihotri Judge