IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WRIT PETITION (227) No. 3> ^3 O Of 2008 1. BETWEEN Premchand Daga S/o The Late Tikamchand Daga, aged about 70 years, resident of Sadar Bazar Raipur, Near Anup Chand Trilok Chand Jewelers, Raipur, Tahsil and District Raipur (CG). Shri Pashrav Padmavati Sewa Sansthan, a registered society having its registration no. 898, New Rajendra Nagar, Ring Road, Near Vijeta .Complex, Raipur, TahsU and District Raipur (CG), through its convener Shri Bulaki Chand Sethiya S/o The Late Jethinal Jain, resident of New ^/<?rV' ^Rajendra Nagar, Ring Road, Behind Ashoka <^/ /^ j? Mfflennium Complex, Raipur (CG) . f'^^Mite ^/^.^ ^/' ^ ,/ l'^ ^ ^ v\d^^ ^^ PETITIONERS AND ^^>' 1. ^^l^ The State of Chhattisgarh, through the Secretary, Departnient of Revenue, Mantralay , D.K.S. Building, Raipur (CG). The Land Acquisition Officer cum Sub Divisional officer, Raipur (CG). The Chief Executive Officer, Raipur Development Authority, Raipur , Tahsil and District Raipur The Collector, Raipur, District Raipur (CG). The Patwari, Patwari Halka No. 104, ViUage Raipura, R.I.Circle Raipur 1 , (CG). RESPONDENTS ^ WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 2f7 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA .^^'^^ ^'^ f /"• ^^'%>, AP^ HIGH COURT OF CHHATT1SGARH : BILASPUR WRIT PETITION (227) N0.3530 OF 2008 PETITIONERS Premchand Daga & Another Versus RESPONDENTS The State of Chhattisgarh & Others (Writ Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India) Single Bench : Hon'ble Shri Satish K. Agnihotri, J. Present:- Ms. Renu Kochar, Advocate for the petitioners. Shri A.S. Kachhawaha, Deputy Advocate General for the State/respondent No. 1, 2, 4& 5. Shri Ashish Shrivastava, Advocate for the respondent No.3. ORDER(ORAL) (Passed on this 27th day ofJuly, 2010) 1. Challenge in this petition is to the legality and validity of the award dated 03/10/2007 (Annexure P/1) passed by the Land Acquisition Officer-cum-Sub Divisional Officer, Raipur and further the entire land acquisition proceedings may be declared as null and void. 2. The facts, in nutshetl, for proper adjudication, as projected by the petitioners, are that the award dated 03/10/2007 (Annexure P/1) was passed by the Land Acquisition Officer-curn-Sub Divisional Officer, Raipur, in landacquisition case No. 12/A/82, year 2006-07 village, Raipura, Patwari Halka No. 104 R.l. Circle, Raipur-1 (Chief Executive Officer v. Vinayak Rao Vagai & Others) under the provisions of Section 11 ofthe Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short "theAct, 1894"). The petitioner is a registered society constituted by the Jain Community for the welfare of the public residing at village, Raipura. The gross land admeasuring 18.838 hectare situated in villagewas recorded in the name of the father of the petitioner No.1 in the revenue record and on that basis, the petitioner was in possession of land, which came under acquisition and after having complied with the required provisions under the Act, 1894, the award was passed on 03/10/2007. Thus, this petition. 3. Ms. Kochar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, submits that the award was passed by the Sub Divisional Officer, and, as such, it is no award in the eyes of law, as under the provisions of Section 11 of the Act, 1894, the award has to be passed by the \fc Jk ^// •^^y Collector alone. On the basis of wrong report in respect of the nature of the land, without observing that the land in dispute was gross land and the said land was covered with fencing under the Rajiv Gandhi Mission with plantations and tube wells. The purpose of the acquisition was bad, as several schemes floated by the petitioner No.2 on the said land. Respondent No.2 was mislead by the respondent No.5. Respondent No.3 without obtaining approval ofthe implementaon of the scheme, took a decision for initiation of land acquisition proceedings contrary to the provisions of law. The respondent No.5 has erroneously informed the respondent No.2 that only 8.54 hectare was gross land, which was kept free from acquisition when the entire land of 18.834 hectares,.Khasra No. 97 was gross land. Huge amount has been spent in plantation, fencing and creating tube wells. The land was acquired without approval of the scheme contrary to the provisions ofthe Act, 1894. 4. On the other hand, Shri Kachhwaha, leaned Deputy Advocate General appearing for the State and Shri Shrivastava, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.3, submit that the notification under Sections 17(1) and 4(1) of the Act, 1894 were issued on 29/12/2006 and the same was published in the local area as well as in the news papers on 18/01/2007 and the said notification was also published on the Chhattisgarh Gazette on 19/01/2007 inviting objections from the land owner. No objections were issued from the original land owners and accordingly the notice under Section 6 of the Act, 1894 was issued on 03/03/2007 and published on 22/03/2007. Thereafter, the award dated 03/10/2007 was passed in accordance with law. Thus, there is no irregularity or illegality in the land acquisition proceedings initiated by the respondent authorities. Learned counsels further submit that the compensation hasbeen determined and some of the persons accepted the same and some persons requested the Collector for referring the matter to the District Judge for enhancement of the compensation amount. The possession ofthe land in dispute has also been handed overto the respondent No.3 and accordingly, the name of the respondent No.3 has been mutated in the concerned land revenue record. Even the respondent No.3 initiated the construction activity as per the Raipura residential scheme. Thus, the writ petition is not maintainable and the same deserves to be dismissed. ^ '..:,....y "•^'',.; :^L^^y 7. 8. Be that as it may, the law on the issue asto whether a writ petition is maintainable after passing oftheland acquisition award and vesting in the Government, is well settled. This Court in Saurabh Daga v. State of Chhattisgarh & Others , observed as under: "6. It is well settled principle of law that a writ petition questioning passing of the award is not maintainable, as after taking over the possession of the land the same vests absolutely in the Govemment free from all encumbrances. Even under Section 48 ofthe Act, 1894, the State Authority a/so cannot withdraw from acquisition after possession has been taken over." In Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay v. Industrial Development Investment Co. Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.2, the Supreme Court held as under: "29. It is thus well settled law that when there is inordinate delay in filing the writ petition and when all steps taken in the acquisition proceedings have become final, the Court should be loath to quash the notifications. The High Court has no doubt discretionary powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to quash the notification under ' Section 4(1) and declaration under Section 6. But it should be exercised taking all relevant factors into pragmatic consideration. When the award was passed and possession was taken, the Court should not have exercised its power to quash the award which is a maten'al factor to be taken into consideration before exercising the power under Article 226. The fact that no third party rights were created in the case is hardly a ground for interference. The Division Bench of the High Court was not right in interfering with the discretion exercised by the learned Single Judge dismissing the writ petition on the ground oflaches." In State of Rajasthan & Others v. D.R. Laxmi & Ors.3, it was held as under: "9.... When the award was passed and possession was taken, the Court should not have exercised its power to quash the award which is a material factor to be taken into consideration before exercising the power under Article 226. The fact that no third party rights were created in the case, is hardly a ground for interference....". ^ 1 W.P.(C) No. 6039 of 2008 (Decided on 02/02/2009) 21996(11)8cc 501 3 JT 1996(9)8c 327 •-^/ •-^'^:^^' 9. In Municipal Council, Ahmednagar & Anr. V. Shah Hyder Beig & ors. , itwas held as under: c(17. In any event, after the award is passed no writ petition can be filed challenging the acquisition notice or against any proceeding thereunder. This has been the consistent view taken by this Court and in one of the recent cases (C. Padma v. Dy. Secy. to the Govt. ofT.N.)...". 10. In Swaika Properties Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. V. State of Rajsthan & Ors.5, the Supreme Court held that a writ petition having been filed after taking over the possession and the award having become final, the same deserves to be dismissed on the ground of delay and laches." 11. Reliance placed by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner upon the decision of Supreme Court rendered in Kaliyappan v. State of Kerala and others , is not applicable to the facts of the present case. 12. The petitioners are seeking the acquisition basically on the ground that the same was not for the public purpose. There is no pleading to the extent that there was any irregularity or iltegality committed by the respondent authorities in compliance with the statutory provisions before passing the impugned award. Further, it is also not case of the petitioners that the petitioners have filed objections, at any stage from the date of notification issued under the provisions of Section 4(1) of the Act, 1894 till passing of the award. Thus, at this stage after award has been passed and land has been vested in the Government, no reliefcan be granted in favour ofthe petitioner. ;i3. Challenge of the petitioners on the ground that the award was not passed by the Collector under the provisions of Section 11 of the Act, 1894 is contrary to the facts. Bare perusal of the award makes it clear that under Section 11 of the Act, 1894 after signature of the Land Acquisition Officer, the Collector has signed the impugned award. Thus, the final award was passed by the Collector not by the Sub Divisional Officer. There is nothing under the provisions of Section 11 of the Act, 1894 that the award must bear only one signature. In the case on hand, the initial signaturewas made by the Sub Divisional Officer, thereafter, it was signed by the Collector. 4 2000 (2) SCC 48 5JT2008(2)SC280 6AIR1989SC239 ^' Thus, it can safely be hetd that the award was passed by the Collector under the provisions of Section 11 of the Act, 1894, and in accordance with law. 14. No exceptional or extraordinary grounds exist or raised toinvoke extraordinary jurisdiction under Articte 226 of the Constitution of India, to take a departure from the well settled principles of law. 15. The petition is accordingly dismissed. No order asto costs. ,Gpwri Sd/- SarishKAgnihotri Judge \^ ^