SI LE BENW JN THE HIGHCOURT OF JUDICATURE . AT BILASPUR, (C.G.l W,P.227NO.'5^^ 2011 PETITIONER: -f^vR^ Krishna Swaroop Gupta, S/o late Shri Ram Swaroop Gupta, aged about 60 years, advocate, R/o G.E.Road, Rajnandgaon, Tah. & Dist. Rajnandgaon (C.G.) VERSUS I RESPONDANT;: r'1. Union of India, through secretary, Jahaj, Sadak ,<:?>A-t"it$^-.Ye^.--'*~ Pariwahan ewam Rajmarg Mantralaya, (Port Pariwahan, \Q\ <i(^' .••^"'^* Sadak Pariwahan, Rajmarg) Transport Bhawan, New ^' ^^^-;";'^ Delhi. "{^ ^7<y^°.^~ Rashtriya Rajmarg Pradhikaran Through Mukhya Prabandhak, Sah Pariyojna Nideshak, Pariyojna Karyanvayan Ikai, A-7. VIP Estate, Shanker Nagar, Raipur (C.G.) 3. Ashoka Buildcon Private Limited, Office Anupam Nagar, Rajnandgaon (C.G.) 4. State of Chhattisgarh, through Collector, Rajnandgaon (C.G.) 5. S.D.O.(Civil)/Land Acquisition officer (Four lane) Rajnandgaon (C.G.) PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA -:-t^-^^.\ f'y' ^a^ "'•^ {; 1 .----S&. |'t@gN-iEt| HIGH COURT OECHHATTISGARH ATBILASPUR Sinate Bench: Hon'ble Shri Justfce Prashant Kumar Mishra W.P. 227 No. 218 of 2011 Versus Indi Postfor 08-05-2011 Sd//- . , Prashant Kumar Mishra 07-03-2011 /•'• /t' / Sj / HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH. BtLASPUR -EBENCH : HON'BLE SHRf PRASHANT KUMAR MISHRA. W.P. 227 No.218 of 2011 PETITIONER Krishna Swaroop Gupta. Versus RESPONDENTS Union of India and others. Shri B.P. Gupta, counset for the petitloner. Smt. Fouzia Mirza, .assi"stant Solicitor Genera! wlth Shri Raghvendra Pradhan,counsel for respondents No. 1 & 2. Miss Sangeeta Mishra, Panel Lawyer forthe State. ORDER ( Or/03/2011) The instant petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been preferred by the plaintifF challenging the order passed by the trial Court on 3/1/2011 (Annexure P/1) dismissing his application under Section 94 of C.P.C., thereby refusing to grant temporary injunction in favour of plaintiff/petitioner. 2. Plaintiff has preferred the sujt for a declaration that no part of his house situated at G.E. Road, Rajnandgaon bearing old Khasra No. 1997 and 2204/3, new sheet No. 47-C, Plot No. 40/3, area 135 sq. meter i.e. 1452 ft., is coming within the area of proposed Four Lane of Nationa! Highway No.6 (Durg-Nagpur Section) and that the defendants No. 2 & 3 are not entitled to demolish any part of his house; as afso for permanent mandatory injunction to restrain the defendants from entering and demolishing any part of the house. It has been averred in the plaint that the defendants are proceeding to convert N.H. No.6 as Four Lane road which is passing through Rajnandgaon town and for that a plan has been issued, however, there is no approved map of G.E. Road nor any demarcation has ever been made. E iii^' •3'3 p »uiod |e4U93 te^ pe^s uesq sey u ·^ue^ jnoj ^o uoipn4suoo ui A}t|eGe||! Aue }no BuRUiod tnoLj)jffi pue uoipe fo ssneo Aue tnoyiiM peiy uasq seij tins 941 pue is9J8)ui oiiqnd u.i si peoj SUE-) jnoj ^o uoipnjtsuoo tetji Buseis SJIB ja^ui uot)e6s||B |uie|d sjsue 941 peiuep eAey stuepus^sp. e4t eouBjsqns u| '(g/d ejnxsuuy syi P )jed) uoipunfui Aiejoduisi ^o }uejB jo^ uoseojidde 914 o^ Aidsj pue (//d sjnxsuuy) }uaiue)Bts ueuiJM eiejedss e pe|y (yjeBsineqqo ^o e»Bts) S '? t' "ON stuepue^sp ®4tAtjeijiuis pue g/d sjnxsuuv spiA uoipunfui Aejodiue} y> tuejS jo^ jsAejd sjiftuiBid 34} 0} Ajdsj s)i peniiuqns s •ON }uepuepp syi •s •ssnoi) siq ^oyed Aue Buiysjiouuep pue Buustus uuojj uisq} uiejisej 01 Stuepuspp eqt )suieBe uoipunfui /Uejoduist BUDJSSS 'O'd'O JO fr6 uoipeg jepun uoiiBoiidde ue PSAOLU osie ^iiuieid 'f •|eBej|! si (py syj, o} psjjs^e-i .isyeuisjeLj) 9S61 'PV sABMyBjH leuoseN P (|.) (3)e uoiioss ui peuietuoo uoisiAojd Aio}8puBLU ©41 SUIMO||OJ tnoqtiM UO»||OLUSP ^0 uoipe ejjtus 9tB 1B4»pe»eisjsyyn^ si t| •()uieid 94} p g ejed pue s ejeti) peoy ••S-Q ^o eippiu) 941 uojj 'y £9^o soueisip e ie pspn^suoo si ||em Aiepunoq &q} pue peoy 'g'Q ^o ejppiui sift tuoj^ 'y 06 P saueisip e }B petenjis sj ssnoy siq pet ui }eqt pue uoiteojeiusp tno4} euop Suisq si pies ey} se |eBe|t! si esnoq eq»y> uoitjioiusp tuenbesuoo ©41pue eue-] jnoj ^o uoipnjisuoo ei|t ysuiB|d ©4lo^Buipjoooe 'sn^i •uoiieojeiusp Aue inoqfM us)|epspun ussq seq uoipe pies stfl pue peLisiiouisp sq 01 psue|d ussq SAeq esje %ge tnoqe SUUSAOO joou punojB 94) ui uoipod tuojj sqi ui petBn^s soyo '||B Aiepunoq 94} p9pn|3ui mou SABII pue ue|d 94} psBueqo eAeq £ •y z 'ON Stuepus^ep eqi JSAOMoq 'psjinboe sq tieqs esnoi) s.jeuoiffisd sqi p pue| p -y -bs gzz o»(enbs js}sui •bs |,z )B4i psqsiiqnd SB }! ^.OOZ '^inp ^OS P^isp uoRBOiiqnd jededsmeu e ui jauoggsd eq} 01 Buipjooav •£ -3- Road has been fixed for iast so many yeare and the petrtioner is free to carryout his own demarcation. It has also been stated that except for the plaintiff's house situated on the notified area all Qther occupants of the area have already vacated their house and to demonstrate this the respondents have filed photograph as Annexure R-2/5 with their return filed in this Court. 6. In the return fited before this Court the respondent No. 2 i.e. the National Highway Aufhority has stated that the land has already been acquired as per Section 3(0) and in view of sub-section (4) thereof, a declaration made by the Central Government under sub-Section (1) is final and shall not be called in question in any Court by any authority. In other words the respondents have stated that grant of temporary injunction v/ould be contrary to the legal provisions and as such the ptaintiff's application itself was not maintainable. In para ? of the return it has been stated that one Fly Over has already been constmcted and the ser/ice road for diversion of existing traffic cannot be constructed without demolishing the acquire part of She land belong'ng to the petitioner/plaintiff. tt Is further stated in the sa'd paragraph that all the nearby house and buitdings have either been removed or under process of removal except that of the plaintiff. According to the respondent No. 2 about 95% ofthe project has been compteted exceptthe service road and the second part of the Fly Over can only be taken up for construction, after consfruction of the service road which is held up because of the 7. Learned triat Court has rejected the prayer after holding that the subject censtruction is in public interest and the respondents/defendants i]g:liB!^ -^l- are constnjcting the Four Lane road on National Highway No.6 after completion of all the legal formalities. Annexure R-2/1 is the certificate issued by the Nazu! OfRcer mentioning therein that as per award dated 02/07/2010a sum of Rs.4,88,653.00 has been determined as compensation to be paid to Shri Krishna Swarup Gupta i.e. the plaintiff herein on account of acquisition of 53.95 sq. meter of land from Plot No. 40/3. Annexure R-2/4 is a cheque in the name of plaintiff for Rs.13,01,833.00. By communication dated 12/9/2010 (at page 11 of the retum) petitioner has been called upon to collect the cheque. This communication contains receipt of the amount by the petitioner on 19/9/2010. Thus it is apparent that fhe petitioner has accepted ths amount of compensation determined by the competent Authority. Petitjoner has neither challenged the award nor tiie acquisition has been questloned. Suit is only filed for a declaration that his house cannot be demolished without complying Section 3(E) of the Act. It requires to be seen that the suit was filed on or about 27/11/2010 and the petitioner received the cheque of the amount of compensation on 19/09/2010, however, in the entire p!aint nothing has been disclosed about the compensation or the receipt of payment by the plaintiff. It is, thus clear that She plaintiff has not approached the Court with clean hands and is trying to obstruct construction of Nattonal Highway and its Four Lane by raising technical pleas which is not tenable. If according to the plaintiff his land is not covered under the scheme prepared by the defendants he should have refused to accept ths compensation and challenged the entire process of acquisition, however ihstead of doing that and after having accepted the amount of compensation the present ^' / 5uit has been fiied. '/-a'f f ^''. fci^ 's.. ^--^..^ '::>., '~'i,^'' - 5 ~ 9, In the matter of Jai Singh and Others vs. Munjcipal Corporation of Delhi reported in (2010) 9 SCC 385, the Hon'ble Supreme Court after referring to its eariier judgment in the matter of Estralla Rubber vs. Dass istate (P) Ud. reported in (2001) 8 SCC 97 has held thus in para 42 of the report:- "42. Undoubtedly, the High Court has the power to reach injustice whenever, wherever found. The scope and amblt of Artlcie 227 of the Constitut'on of India had been discusssd in Estralla Rubberv. Dass Estefe (P) Ltd. reported in (2001) 8 SCC 97wherein it was observed as follov/s : "6. The scope and ambit of exereise of power and jurisdiction by a High Court under Art'cle 227 of She Constitution of India is examined and explained in a number of decisions of this Court. The exerclse of power under this article involves a duty on the High Court to keep inferior courts and tribunals within the bounds of their authority and to see that they do the duty expected or required of them in a tega! manner. The High Court is not vested with any unlimited prerogative to correct alf kinds of hardship or wrong decisions made within the limits of the jurisdiction of the subordinate courts of tribunals. Exercise of this power and interfering with Sfte orders of the courts or tribunals is restricted to cases of serious dereliction of duiy and flagrant violation of fundamental principles of law or justice, where if the High Court does not interfere, a grave injustice remains uncorrected. It is also well settled that the High Court while acting under this article cannot exercise ite power as an appellate court or substitute its own judgment in place ofthat - of the subordinate court to correct an error, which is not apparent on the faee ofthe record. The High Court can set asids or ignore the findtngs of facts of an inferior court or .tribunal, If thers is no evtdence at all to justify or the finding is so perverse, that no reasonable person can possibly come £- to such a conclusion, which the court or tribunal has come to." 10. Applying the said prindples of law and particularly in view of the fact that the petitioner has already received the amount ofcompensation even before filing of the suit,this Court does not find any ground for interfering with the order passed by the trial Court. Conseqyently, the petition under Articfe 227 of the Constitution of India is dismissed. Sd/./- •f- &