^L^.±LT-^-L~k.\-V\f'\^-^^^'^^L,~^^~^'^'^^^' ^^-^T^ru~,^^'^.,-^cy^^>^-~^^TL/^fr^/^<K^/' IN THE HOPrmE.HIGH COURT GF CHHATngGARH AT ^ B^^PUR fCHHATnSGARffl WRITPETITION(C) N0.$^2, PETITIONER: Ambika Prasad Dewangan, son of Late Dwarika Nath Dewangan, aged about .*-• l'"''./'V^'/ 44 years, residence of Baigapara, near >-^^--'-/•• „.•; .. <. _ _.. ~ ^ .•'.-•'O'.>rf'^•"'' Shitla Man^ir, Durg,Chhatfisgarh. ^O^W-"" "^' "' : " ' Versus 72008. !1^ State of Chhattisgarh, Through Secretary, Schopl Education Department, DKS Bhawan, Raipiir, Chhaftisgarh. ^. Direcfor, Lok Shikshan Sanchanalaya X^^ - "/ ^ ^tf^y Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 3. District Education Officer, Durg, Chhattisgarh. 4. CoIIectbr, Durg, District Durg, Chhattisgarh. 5. Land Acquisidon Officer andSub Divisional Officer, Durg, District Durg, Chhattisgarh. 6. Director Mission, Rajeev Gandhi Education Mission, Raipur, Disfrict Raipur, Chhattisgarh. ^ WRITPETmQN CHSTDER ARTICLE226 OFTHE CONSTITUTION OF TNDIA '*«li(i^ ,..,;:;;tiii: :L'.•.:;'.! i: K'^-,' A.^•^&a^sri^fe^Vl^£^^11^ sqi Aq speiu SB Aiinbus ue 'jeyeejeu/w l.t'9'oN ejseij^ ui peieniis jauoimad eqi Aq psuMO pue| eiji uo pssiej Buieq si uoiianjisuoo |e6ej!! IBUI jepijsqej. eui sjoieq uogeoiidde ue epeiu jsuoiiiied sy} }eqi peiiiiuqns jeuvnj si u 'jsuouged sui 0} pied SBM uoBesuedLuoo Aue jou UMBJp ejem sBuipseoojd uoiiisinboe puei ou 'ioouosjo uoiiSn.iisuoo ^o sesodjnd 341 joi pue! pies sui BuDieiejoieq pue Lj79'o|M BJSeLjx ui peienijs 'ejBioeq ^Q'Q Buunsvawpe 'puei sjeyouited sqi uo ]6ouo9 ^iBiuyd }usiuujeAOF> e lonflsuoo 01 pepesoojd luetuyedea uogeonpg looqog sqi-g oi i.'ojsi siuspuodsej IBUI si jouoimsd eu} ^o eseo eqi •7, 'jsouiO uouisinbov pue-i eq} Aq pessed jepjo euijo SIA ui 'uoiiesuediuoo oi Buiieiej j9}iBiu eqi epioep 01 siuspuodsej sui o} penssi sq uoipsjip B leqi psAejd useq osje seu )l •spBLU Buieq IIBS s! uoiionjisuoo SLUOS pue psjomisuoo useq seu Bujpiinq [ootfos e 'qoiuM uo pue siuspuodsw eui Aq ue^e} ueeq seq usitiM 'jsuoiijisd squo puei sqi lonei] ui 'uouesusdLuoo ABdoi siuspuoasej 10 uouasjip y} souenssi jq) jeuogiisd aui Aq psjy uasq seu uouiisd siui (K.OZ •!"dVio ^OZ uo psssBd) yaayo ivyo 'y'ON }uepuodssj jo^ |ssunoo 'BiiBfWeijLioeLjx-s-v uqg J •S 01 i siuspuodsej/sieis "' eqi JO^ iBJSueg steooApy Aindaa 'AquniAj-s'A'A "43 'jeuojti.lsd sij) Wf jesunpo 'nLjBQ 'd 'IUQ "4S 41!M BUOIB iesunp3 joius3 'B!)jn49->r[sj •ja - ^uasajj sjeqiopue i|!ieBs!UBLi40.lo eieis SlN3aNOdS3y snsjs^ . ueBuemea pesejd e^jqiuv y3NO!l!13d 800VZ99VOH t.0.1 N011113d 1M T'BABiSBAUUS ueyotfv BJpuiUBV^i.jys aiqsUoH :uou3gaiBU!s undsyiia: HyvosuivHHO doiynoo HOIH Tahsildar and in that enquiry, the Tahsiidar required the Schooi Education Department to produce documents regarding acquisition of the property. It was stated before the Tahsiidar that the Bhumiswami had gifted out the iand in question to the Government, on which, the schooi building has been constructed. On such statement being made, the matter was enquired into and the Tahsildar recorded in its order-sheet that there are no dScuments of gift deed and thereafter, the matter was referred to the Land Acquisition Ofricer ror appropriate proceedings. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that thereaner, the Land Acquisition Ofricer issued a memo on 11/5/07 to the District Education Officer to submit proposal regarding acquisition of iand. On 1/3/08 (Annexure P/5), the District Education Officer informedthe Coilector that in view of the iegai notice given by the petitioner for payment of compensation, instructions have been sought from the Director, Pubiic Instructions, who in turn, directed the Director, Rajeev Gandhi Shiksha Missioh, Raipur to take necessary steps. Learned counsei for the petitioner further submitted that vide memo dated 11/4/08 (Annexure R-6/4),the District Coordinator of Rajeev Gandhi Shiksha ^4ission wrote to the Mission Director that the schooi was constructed 22 years before and the petitioner has been claiming compensation since 1985, whereasthe building has been sanctioned for Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan in the year 2003-04 and therefore, the ciaim for compensation does not concern with Sarva Sniksha Abhivaan. He iastiv submitsthat from the memo dated 678/07and 13/7/07 ofthe Tahsildar, filed collectively as Annexure R/2 and memo dated 13/10/07 and 23/4/10 filed coliectiveiy as Annexure R/3, though the proceedings have been initiated for return of the iand by shifting the school to some other Government land but tiil date, neither the school has been removed nor any compensation has been paid to the petitioner. •Q s 1 n! v^ 3. On the other hand, learned counsei for the respondents 1 to 5 submitted that thefather ofthe petitioner hadeariierflled a suit for declarationand recovery of possession, challenging the action of the respondent, in raising construction of school buiiding on his land but that suit was dismissed. He further submits that the schooi has been constructed iong back more than two decades. At that time, the petitioner or his predecesspr i.e. his father.did not take any steps either to elaim compensation nor took recourse to remedyavailabie to him underthe law. He further submits that from variouscommunicatjons, which have been placed on record by respondent No.6 and from the proceedings of the Tahsiidar, it is reveaied that the fatherof the petitioner had giftedthe lana for the purppses of consfruction of schooi. After sometime, he took summersauit and started ciaiming compensation. He submits that as the petitioner did not approach this Court nor resisted construction of schoo! at the time of its construction, he is not entitled to any relief. 4. Learnedcounsel for respondent No.6 referred to letters (Annexure R-6/1, R-6/2 and R-6/3) to submit that the school authorities have written that the schooi was constructed on the land, which was gifted and lateron, after the schooi was constructed and run for the last more than 20 years, now a dispute is being raised. He submits that from this communication, it is reyealed that the father of the petitioner had gifted to the respondent -School Education Departmentlong back inthe hope that the surrounding land owned by him, wiii become more vaiuable. But now, he has started claiming compensation.which is liable to be rejected. 5. On 18/10/10,thisCourtgrantedtimetothe respondenttoproduceaiieged gift deed in view of the statementmade that the land in dispuie, which is undBr ./^-^•"^ 1t 1 %,.^y •!'•'•'•' possession of the Government school, was gifted by the father of the petitioner, faiiing which it may be presumed that there is no gift deedin existence in favour of the school or the State. However, respondents have failed to produce any document to show that the land in dispute was'gifted. The stand has been taken on the basis of certain communications which contained that the father of the petitioner had gifted the land. However, there is no material on record to substantiate such submission. The proceedings before the Tahsildar aiso show that on 3/7/06, the Tahsiidar recorded that the Education Department has failed to produce any document to show that the land in dispute was gifted. The Tahsildar finaiiy came to the conciusion that the iand belongs to the petitioner and there is no acquisition made or compensation made and referred the matter to the Land Acquisition Officer. The Land Acquisition Officer, vide his memo dated 11/5/07 required the District EducationOfficer to submit proposai regarding acquisition of land, so that the compensation may be paid to the petitioner. It however, appears from the perusa! of memo dated 13/7/07 and 6/8/07 fiied coilectivelv as Annexure R/2 and memo dated 13/10/07 and 23/4/10 filed coilectively as Annexure R/3 that certain proceedings have been drawn for return or the land to the petitioner byshifting the schooi to some other Government lana. 6. In view of the aforesaid documents, it appears that the authorities of the respondent themselves have takensteps for shifting pfthe schooi to some other Government land, even though initiaiiy, the Land Acquisition Officer, vide his memo dated 11 /5/07 (Annexure P/1) proposed payment of compensation. 7. In that view of the matter, the respondent authority shaii take appropriate decision either with regard to returning the iand of the petitioner or make ^%, "^ :'"'i'l«nNNf?:! payment of compensation to him inaccordance with iaw. The Land Acquisition Ofricer shali take appropriate decision with regard to the entitlement of the petitioner for compensation, in case, the landofthe petitioner is not returned, as proposed in various eommunications referred to above. Ifthe petitioner is neither paid compensation nor the land is vacated, it would be open for the petitioner to take recourse to such remedy as may be availaDle to him under the iaw. The respondent No.2 and Sshail take deGision with regard toshifting of the school within a reasonable time. in case, the school is not shiftedwithin a period of six months from the date of receipt of copy of this order, the Land Acquisition Ofricer shali take stepsas directed by this Court. : '• - 8. With the aforesaid directions, the petition is finaiiy disposed off. S ; ,Sd/- | ^Manindra Mohan Shrivastavag i| --•-:-'- • Judge |