HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Writ Petition No. 1124 of 2002 PETITIONER : Shyam Kishor Agrawal son of Ram Sewak Agrawal, aged about 72 years Resident of Turihatri, Purani Basti, Raipur (CG). VERSUS State of 'Chhattisgarh through the Chief Secretary, DKS Bhavan, G.E, Road, Raipur (CG). 2. The Collector Durg, District Durg (CG). Sub Divisional O$cer (B&R) Public Works Department Durg Sub Division Durg District Durg (CG). RESPONDENT (WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA) (SB: Hon'ble Mr. Satish K, Agnihotri, J.) A Present : Shri Ratan Pushty, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri Alok Bakhshi, Govt. Advocate for the State. ORAL ORDER (Passed on 25m day of September, 2008) With the consent of the parties, the matter is taken up for hearing finally. Learned counsei appearing for the petitioner submits that this petition was tiled impugning the action of the respondents, whereby construction of road was made on a portion of land bearing Khasra l No. 214, under ownership of the petitioner. 3. Pursuant to the direction of this Court, demarcation was done by the State Government, wherein it is clearly indicated that the road marked with red ink in Khasra No. 214 admeasuring 0.39 Hect. land, admittedly is under ownership of the petitioner. Government, in its return dated 07.08.2002, observed as under: "That as per the records available with the AnsWering Respondent, they were under the impression that the said land was of the State Government and a$ per the scheme, the State Government was to provide the land for the construction of the road and in case the land is to be acquired, the compensation for the land was to be granted by the State Government. In the instant ease, however, from the records available, when the construction started, it was learnt that the State Government in fact did not have any land for road at some portion of the road connecting Amleshwar to Magarghata. XXX XXX XXX XXX Qty It is further submitted that at the time when the construction was started, the answering respondent were under the bona tide beliefthat the existing road horn Amleshwar to Magarghata was that of the State Govemment and that it was only when the petitioner had tiled this petition and notice of the same was served upon the answering respondent, it was learnt that the said land belonged to the petitioner." It is further stated in the return that if it is found that the land belongs to the petitioner, a suitable compensation would be paid to him. The factual position, on the basis of demarcation report as well as the averments made by the State in his return, it appears that, the disputed portion of land, whereupon the road has been constructed, belongs to the petitioner. The petitioner, as per assurance of the State Government in its return, is entitled to compensation under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 13.94 (for short ’the Act, 1394) The State Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that since the land cannot be reverted back to the petitioner, the petitioner is satisfied if the compensation is assessed and paid at the earliest in accordance with the provisions of the Act, 1894. For the reasons mentioned hereinabove and the averments made by the State, the petition is allowed to the extent that compensation of the land belonging to the petitioner, used for the purpose of construction of road, shall be assessed and paid to the petitioner at the earliest, under the provisions of the Act, 1894. Interim relief granted earlier stands discharged. Consequently, M(W)P No. 421/02, application for grant of interim relief and M(W)P No. 579/03, application for vacating the interim order; also stand disposed of. No order as to costs. " Sdl- ‘i satish K. Agm'hom ft Judge