fflGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WRIT PETITION CC) No. 1845 of2007 PETITIONERS : Budharu Ram & Others. VERSUS RESPONDENTS : State of Chhattisgarh & Others. Post for pronoimcement ofjudgment & order on -2 ? day of July, 2009. Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge ^^>y%,. r>^^ '^ 's fe s % '^fSS!,.. ^ 1 -^>'y '"*^KP»*<r y; mOH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR PETITIONERS WRIT PETITION CC) No. 1845 of2007 1. RESPONDENTS Budham Ram S/o Late Sundar Lal Dhaakar, Aged about 48 years, R/o village Baputola, P.0. Chichda Tehsil and Distt. Rajnandgaon (C.G.) 2. Prem Lal S/o Late Sadaram Dhankar Aged about 70 years, R/o Village Baputola, P .0. Chichola, Tehsil and Distt. Rajnandgaon (C.G.) 3.A. Ashwani Bai W/o Late Shatrudhan, aged about 30 years. 3.B. Ku. Sangita Bai D/o Late Shatmdhan, aged about 09 years. 3.C. Master Nirmal S/o Late Shatrudhan, aged about 06 years. 3.D. Master Sohan S/o Late Shatrudhan, aged about 04 years. Both their moftier Resondent No. 3(b), 3(c) & 3(d) are represented by Smt. Ashwani Bai W/o Shatmdhan, R/o village Bakutola, Police Station Chichola, Tahsil & District Rajnandgaon (C.G.) 4. Kheduram S/o Sundar Lal, Aged about 37 years, R/o village Baputola, P.0. Chichola, Tehsil and Distt. Rajnandgaon. VERSUS 1. State of Chhattisgarh through Secretary, Water Resources Department, D.K.S.Bhawan, Manta-alaya, Raipur (C.G.) 2. Executive Engineer, Water Resources Department, Khatutola - Bairaj Project, Dongargarh, Distt. Rajnaadgaon (C.G.) 3. The Sub Divisional Officer (Civil) Rajnandgaon Distt. Rajnandgaon (C.G.) WRJT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA SB: Hon'bl^Shri Satish K. Asnihotri. J. Present: Shri Anup Majumdar, Advocate for the petitioners. Shri Arun Sao, Govemment Advocate for the State/respondents. JUDGEMENT & ORDER (Passed on ..2-T. day of July, 2009) 1. By this petition, the petitioners seek a direction to the respondents not to acquire their land for constmction of proposed canal in village Baputola Khatutola Bairaj Project, contrary to the master plan and without following the provisions ofthe Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short 'the Act') and further to stop the ongoing constmction work over their land and make a payment ofRs. 50.000/- as compensation. ^ 2. The facts, in nutshell, are that the petitioners are members of one family and jointly owning the land situated at Baputola, Chhuriya District Rajnandgaon. According to the petitioners, the land i.e. survey No. 110/04, 114, 115 admeasuring 4.914 acres are in the name ofpetitioner No. 1, survey no. 37/1, 40/2, 40/5, 42/3, 43/7, 78/1 admeasuring 7.797 acres is owned by petitioner No. 2 and land bearing survey No. 129, 79 and 129/1 admeasuring 2.207 acres land are owned by the petitioner No. 1, 3 and 4 jointly. The Water Resources Department undertook the construction of canal under the project Khatutola - Bairaj Project without acquiring the lands of the petitioners in accordance with the provisions of the Act. The constmction has been undertaken which is contrary to the master plan prepared for the irrigation. It is further submitted that if the canal is diverted, the land of the petitioners can be saved from acquisition. 3. Shri Sao, leamed counsel appearing for the State/respondents, on the basis of averments made in the retum dated 18 June, 2007, filed by the respondents/State would submit that the respondents have not yet started any construction over and above the land in question. Shri Sao would further submit that there is a proposal for construction of canal which is known as "Right Bank Canal of Khatutola Barrage Project" under which the petitioners' apprehend that the petition scheduled land may be acquired. It is further submitted that no land would be acquired without following the due process oflaw for the purpose ofconstruction ofcanal. 4. Shri Majumdar, in his rejoinder would further submit that after filing ofthe petition, the State Govemment has issued a notification under section 4 of. the Act, on the 29 December, 2007 which was published in the newspaper on the 04 January, 2008. Shri Majudar would further submit that the petitioners have filed an objection also to the said notification. &''/A %;'^ ^^ €-\ °^. - .-''' ^ '•^. • \'^:...,.,,<;*' ^ '^. ''"Sf"" ^ '5iSS._ 'v.rf'<1' '•'"•''SfS^'''^" 5. Having regard to the facts situation of the case, it appears that no construction has been undertaken on the petition scheduled land and notification under section 4 of the Act has been issued. The petftioners have also filed objection to the said notification. Thus, this petition is premature and misconceived. 6. So far as direction to the respondents that they should acquire the land in accordance with law is concemed, the presumption is that the authorities act in accordance with law unless there is a specific contrary act indicating that the authorities have not acted in accordance with law. Thus, no direction to this effect can be issued at this stage when the initial notification has been issued and no case has been made out that there is any violation of any mles or provisions oflaw. 7. For the reasons mentioned hereinabove, this writ petition is dismissed as being premature. No order asto costs. Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge Amit