@ HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE CHHATTISGARH' BILASPUR SINGLE BENCH HON BLE SHRI S R NAYAK CJ Writ Petition No.3086 of 1998 PETIT!ONERS 1. Dr. V.K. Moda, S/o Changama! Moda, aged about 49 years, Moda Ciinic, Power House Road, Korba, Tahsil & District Korba (MP) 2. Smt. Rashmi Moda, wife Late Shri Pawan Moda, aged about 38 years, Clo Moda Clinic, Korba, Tahsil and District Korba (MP) VERSUS RESPONDENTS 1. The State of Chhattisgarh Thi'ough Secretary, Department of Revenue Mantralaya DKS Bhawan Ralpur 2. The Superintending Engineer, Hasdeo Pariyojana Mandai, Rampur Korba District, Korba (MP) The Coliector, Korba The Land Acquisition Officer, Hasdeo- Pariyouana Mandai, Janjgir, Distt. Champa-Janjgir (MP) 5. The Additional Coltector, Korba Distt. Korba (MP) Present: Shri Sanjay K Agrawai counsel for the petitioners Shn Yashwant Singh learned G A for the State (Passed on 11 September 2006) lnitialiy, the subject land owned by the petitioner was sought to be acquired, but, before possession of the subject Iand was taken over by the State, after passing the award the Government decided not to acquire the Iand. Accordingly, by exercising its power under Section 48 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short “the Act’) it has abandoned the acquisition proceedings. When the matter stood thus, the petitioner- owner moved an application, marked as Annexure P/5, to the Collector, Koiba, the 3r“ respondent herein, to pass appropriate order under sub- Section (2) of Section 48 of the Act. Sub-Section (2) of Section 48 of the Act provides that whenever the Government withdraws from any acquisition proposed infthe Coiiector shaii determine the amount of compensation due for the damage suffered by the owner in \ Vt consequence of the notice or of any proceedings thereunder, and shall pay such amount to the person interested, together with all costs reasonably incurred by him in the prosecution of the proceedings under this Act relating to the said land. Since, the Collector did not pass order under sub-Section (2) of Section 48 of the Act, this writ petition is filed. (2) ln the return filed by the Collector, it is asserted that the petitioner did not suffer any damage, because, the possession of the subject land is with the owner himself. The defence raised by the Collector is untenable. The State has not taken over possession of the subject land after the award was passed and before by virtue of the power conferred under sub-Section (1) of Section 48 of the Act, the State Government withdrew land acquisition proceedings. Sub—Section (2) of Section 48 of the Act would deal with only those cases where possession is with the oWner himself before the withdrawal of,acquisition proceedings. Be that as it may, since the petitioner has made an application to the Collector contending that he has suffered damage on account of land acquisition, it becomes imperative for the Collector to pass appropriate orders under sub-Section (2) of Section 48 of the Act after hearing the petitioner-land owner. Admittedly, the Collector has not yet passed any order under sub-Section (2) of Section 48 of the Act. (3) In that view of the matter, I dispose of the writ petition directing the Couecton the third (espcndent herein, to consider the application of the petitioner Annexure PI5 and pass appropriate orders under sub-Section (2) of Section 48 of the Act after giving reasonabie opportunity to the petitioner to submit his case. No costs. z I, V, i 5=tb=r=x w igvdj:# Chief Justice