© IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, AT BILASPUR. (C.G.l REVIEW PETITION N0. ^7 /2011 APPLICANT APPLICANT PLAINTIFF 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.) NON-APPLICANTS 1. RESPONDENTS DEFENDANTS 2. 3. 4. 5. A/' / ^,^7 /^ //y/ ^//Ar //J^ VERSUS Union of Jndia, through secretary, Jahaj, Sadak Pariwahan ewam Rajmarg Mantralaya, (Port Pariwahan, Sadak Pariwahan, Rajmarg) Transport Bhawan, New Delhi. Rashtriya Rajmarg Pradhikaran, Through Mukhya Prabandhak, Sah Pariyojna Nideshak, Pariyojna Karyanvayan Ikai, A-7. VIP Estate, Shanker Nagar, Raipur (C.G.) Ashoka Buildcon Private Limited, Office Anupam Nagar, Rajnandgaon (C.G.) State of Chhattisgarh, through Collector, Rajnandgaon (C.G.) S.D.O.(CiviI)/Land Acquisition officer (Four lane) Rajnandgaon (C.G.) Review aoolication under section 114 read with order 47 nile 1 C.P.C., of the order dated 08/03/11 passed in W.P. f2271 No. 218/2011. -— ^^^m^. APPLICANT: Plaintiff HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH: BILASPUR Review Petition No.27 of 20 11 Krishna Swaroop Gupta Versus NON-APPLICANTS: Defendants Union of India & others POST FOR ORDER ONo^JULY, 2011 Sd//- Prashant Kumar Mishra Judge !..S^..^.,si«,^^ ..^s"!^-. //""^ y ^t^s^^ ; "u '^,. ^ry ^...^-^" @ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Review Petition No.27 of 2011 APPLICANT: Plaintiff NON-APPLICANTS: Defendants Krishna Swaroop Gupta Versys Union of India & others Present: Shri B.P. Gupta, counsel forthe petitioner. Shri Raghvendra Pradhan, Standing Counsel for respondents No.1 & 2. Shri G.D. Waswani, Govt. Advocate for respondents No.4 & 5. ORDER (Passedon_g^iuly,2011) Prashant Kumar Mishra, J 1. The writ petition was heard and was dismissed by order dated 8-3- 2011. In the writ petition, the petitioner had challenged the order passed by.the trial Court dismissing his application under Section 94 of the CPC. The matter pertains to conversion of National Highway No.6 into a four lane road for which the petitioner's land has been acquired. However, the petitioner filed a suit for declaration that no part of his housesituated at G.E. Road is coming within the area of proposed foyr laning of NH-6 and defendants No.2 and 3 are not entitled to demolish any part of his house. Dismissal of the writ petition was ordered on the ground that the petitioner has received amount of compensation and thus, he is not entitled to claim any relief. However, by filing Review Petition No.27 of 2011 , the petitioner contended that in fact, he has not received any amountof compensation. Since this was the only ground for dlsmissal of this writ petition and this Court had not dealt with the ^merits of the challenge, in Review Petition No. 27 of 2011 an order ••"^J .^.1 :,.2 dated 11-5-2011 was passed for hearing the writ petition afresh on merits, with the consent pf learned counsel appearing forthe parties. 2. Asearlier stated, thesuit preferred by the plaintiff is fora declaration that no part of his house situated at G.E.Road Rajnandgaon iscoming within the area of proposed four laneof NH-6 (Durg-Nagpur section) and that defendants Np.2 and 3 are not entitled to demolishany partof his house. He has also prayed for mandatory injunction to restrain the defendants from entering and demolishing any part of his house. According to the petitioner, there is no approved map ofG.E. Road nor any demarcation has been made. In a newspaper publication dated 20th July, 2007, it was declared that21 sq. meteris equal to 226 sq. ft. of land ofthe petitioner's house shall be acquired. However,contrary to this,a larger area is now sought to be demolished which is illegal. It has also been stated that his house issituated at a distance 6f 90 ft. from the middle of G.E. Road and the boundary wall is constructed at a distance of 63 ft. from the middle of G.^. Road and that proposed demolition is being made without following the mandatory provisions contained in Section 3 (E) (1) ofthe National HJghwaysAct, 1956 (for short 'the Act'). 3. According to defendant No.2, construction of four lane road is in the interest of public and the suit has been filed without any cause of action. It is stated that the provisionsof the Act have been followed and except for the plaintiffs house situatedon the notified area, all other occupants of the area have already vacated their houses and to demonstrate this, the defendants have filed photographs as Annexure- /R-2/5withtheirreturn. • .i.. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties at length. 5. The respondents have also submitted the entire record relating to the acquisition. 6. The main grievance of the petitioner is that vide Annexure-P/2, notification dated 9 June, 2008, only 21 sq. meter area belonging to the petitioner was proposed to be acquired. However, demolition is proposed to be carried out on a larger area ad measuring 53.95 sq. meter. 7. Controverting this plea, the respondents have filed copy of notification dated 10 May, 2010 in which it is mentioned that an area of 53.95 sq. meter belonging to the petitioner is the subject matter ofacquisition. 8. The aforesaid notification has been attacked by the petitioner on submission that two notifications for the same acquisition cannot be issued. 9. On perusal of the record of case No.03/2009-2010/A-82 pertaining to land acquisition for four laning ofNH-6, it appears that notification under Section 3 A(1) was published on 20th January, 2010 in the official gazette and thereafter it was published in the local newspaper on 5-2- 2010. Notification under Section 3 D was published on 10th May,2010 and thereafter an award has been passed on 2-7-2010. In this award, an area of 53.95 sq. meter belonging to the petitioner has been acquired. Acquisition is not the subject matter of challenge in the suit, therefore, validity of the award is not inquestion, as no such relief has been claimed in the plaint; Since an award has already been passed, it cannot be said that the respondent authorities are acquiring a larger .r ^•iiy:'^ area than 21 sq. meter which was earlier notified and are thus committing illegality. The respondents are definitely entitled to raise construction and take possession of area belonging to the petitioner which has already been acquired and for which an award has already been passed. 10. If the petitioner has not received amount of compensation, the petitioner has to blame himself because the respondents have presented copies of the note sheets of the Land Acquisition Officer before this Court from which it transpires that the petitioner has appeared in the proceeding at the time of assessment of compensation. A cheque for Rs.13,01,833.00/- in the name of the petitioner has also been shown to this Court, which is part of record of the Land Acquisition Officer. 11.1n view of the above, since acquisition is already complete and the award has already been passed, the respondents cannot be restrained from taking possession of the area which has been acquired under the Act. l2.No case for interference is made out. The review petition is accordingly dismissed. Sd//- Prashant Kumar Mishra Judge o^/y/zui i Barve