'ffiS C RE&yfe', l'^1^^^. ' ^l^^i^^l' IJMCIF RFIijffftl £/F^ r^/o IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATUREJIT BILASPUR CHHATTISGARH WRIT PETITION (C) NO.^^OF 2007 ^" PETITIONER: ^•^^ y ^^^> .'iy ,.••"'^<>>»'./;'" ^' ^^A'' '..*'' rjf ^/ RESPONDENTS : u -/^ ^ ?^y ^' ff v"/^~'\ '^ ^ i.is«is'(s-'!:y.. ?j Ts ^i!"K°!s"''""7.^ & 'A, ^X. ^•'^ /! '%y-^:~sS*',/ %i^Sfvsey • ^ ^- NTPC Limited Korba through Sr. Officer (Human Resources), Shri Emtiyaz Ali, S/o Late Shri Mustaq Ali, aged about 50 years, Korba Super Thermal Power Station, N.T.P.C., Jamnipali, Distt Korba (Chhattisgarh) Versus State of Chhattisgarh, through the Secretary, Department ofRevenue, Mantralaya, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (Chhattisgarh). The Collector, Distt Korba (Chhattisgarh) Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue), Katghora, District Korba (Chhattisgarh). Naib Tahsildar, Up Tahsil - Dipka, Tahsil Katghora, District Korba (Chhattisgarh) Rajesh Banjare, S/o Suleman, aged about 34 years, R/o Village Gevra, Police Station Kosmanda, Tahsil Katghora, District Korba (Chhattisgarh) WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CQNSTITUTION OF INDIA HM3H COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Writ PetiUon (C) No. 2907 of 2007 PETmONER : NTPC Limited, Korba Versus RESPONDENTS : State of Chhattisgarh & Others WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 227 OS THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA (SB: Hon'MeMr.N.K.Aaarwal.J.t Present : Dr. NK Slwrida, Sr. Ach/ocate with Shri 80 Quru and Shri Aditya Tiwari, Advocates for the p^it'ioner. Shri Vinay Harit, Deputy Advocate General for ^ate/ respondent No. 1 to 4. Shri AS Kachhwaha, Advocate for r^pondent No. 5. ORALCTIDER (Passed on 3ra day 6f Septenntoer, STOIO) Wt i the con^art of tte (Mrties, the matter is heard finally. 1. The instant petition is filed undw Aiticte 227 of the Gonstitirtion of India against the orders dated 28.02.2007 and 13.03.2007 passed by the Coltector, Korba, in case Na 17/8-121/06-07 (NTPC Ud. v. Rajesh Banjare). 2. Brief facts of the case are that, the Natel Tehsildar, Deepika, Teh. Kathghora, Distt. Korba, vide its wder dated 14.10.20(ffi, directed the petittonw for paymerrt of compensation regarding land bearing Khasra No.30/8, area 4 Acre sifaiated at viltage Gewa whteh was acqulred by the p^itioiwr wlthout paying any compensation. Against that, the petitioner preferred an appeat whlch was dlsmissed by the SDO (Revanue), l^tghora, vide tts order dated 08.09.2006. There-again^, an appeat was ^ preferred before the Collector, Korba, along with an applieation for grant of stay. The Collector, Kort®,vide its order dated 28.02.2007, directed the pet'rtloner to deposit 50 percent of the expected amount of compensation, which may be payabte to the respondent Pto. 5, else, the appeal would be hekl not malntainable, and thereaftor, in non-compliance of order dated 28.02.2007, the Collector, Korba, vide its order dated 13.03.2007 dismissed the appeal as not maintainable. Dr. NK Shukla, leamed counsel appearing for the petitioneF would contend that though condition of deposit of 50 percent of the expected amount can be imposed by the appeltate authority as pre COTidition for grant of interim cwder, but in tte absence of stahitory compulsion to deposit such amount as condition precedent for preferring an appeal such dlrection given by the Collector, Korba, is unwarranted and in case of non deposit of sueh amount the appeal cannot be dfemissed as not maintainable. On the other hand, Shri Vinay Hartt, teamed Deputy Adwcate General appearing for State, and Shri AS Kachhwaha, teamed counsel for respondent No. 5 would submtt that the petitlorwr had not pald any compensation for the acquisitkm of tend in question which is required to be pald to respondent No. 5. However, they fairty submit that the Coltector, Korba, had no authority to dismiss theappeal on the yound of non deposit of 50 percent ofthe expected amount ofcompensation. S ":^NI 1 » I'l 8. Sahu Having heard the counsel appearing for the parties and havlng perused the orders Impugned, without entering mto the nierits of the case, sufflce it to say, that the right of apped is a creature of legislature i.e. statutory in nature anct under Secrtton 44 of the Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code, there te no provision direcflng the appellant todeposit flrst 50 percent of the expected amount of compensation as pre condition for preferring an appeat, and as such, the Collector, Korba, is not authorized to hetd the appeal as mrt matntainabte tn the absence of such deposit. Although, the Collertor, torba, in its discretion, is free to impose such condltions whlte granting stay order. tn view of above, In the considered opinion of tNs court, the Collector, Korba, has exceeded its jurisdtetton In passing such orders which are not sustainable in law. In the result, the petition is altowred. The orders cteted 28.02.2007 and 13.03.2007 passed bythe Colle^or, Korba are set aside and the matter Is remitted back to the Colte<rtor, Korba, for passing the order on the appeal preferred by the petitioner after gtvlng due opportuntty of hearing to the parties in accordance with law. Hcwever, in the facts and eircumstances of the case, there shall be no order asto costs. —— Sd/- N.K. Agrawal Judge