c .f •\GO( sb ^ m THE mOH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH,AT BIL^SyQR W.P.(ClNO^O/lf/2011 PE^FITIOKmi:- ^Maszid Mova Committee, Atias Sunni Hanfi Masjid Mowa Coniimttee, Tlu'oi^b: Mut^aIIi, Mohamxnad Aarif Raza S/o Noor Moheminad, aged 40 years R/o Mova Raipur District Raipur (C.G). YERSUS RB^PONDENTS :-l. State of Chhattisgarh Through: Secretary , Department Qf Revenue D.K.S Bhavan Mantralay Raipur (C.G). ,\^^2.0011ector 65 Ex-Officio Secretary, \2 •h^ ^v^ ^.'s^ ^%^"; .^ State of Chhattisgarh Department of Revenue, Raipur (C.G). ^3. Sub Divisional Officer Cum Land Acquisition Officer, Raipur Tehsil & District Raipur (C.G). ^ 4. Director General, Chhattisgarh Council For Science & Technolo^ ,L(>kash Plaza, First Floor, Shanker Nagar Raipur, (C.G). ^ 5. Commissioner,Chhattisgarh House Construction Board, Head Quarter Shanker Nagar Raipur (C.G). 6. Executive Engineer, Clihattisgarh House Construction Board, Division No.4 Raipur (C.G). WMT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226/227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WRIT PETITION (C) No. 6014 of 2011 PETITIONER RESPONDENTS Maszid Mova Committee alias Sunni Hanfi Masjid Mowa Committee. VERSUS State ofChhattisgarh & Others. WRIT PETITIONUNDER^RTICLE 226/227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA SB: Hon'ble Shri Satish K. Asnihotri, J. Present: Shri S.N.Nande, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri V.V.S.Moorthy, Deputy Advocate General for the State/ respondent No. 1 to 4. ORDER (ORAL) (Passed on 12th day of October, 2011) 1. Challenge in this petition is to the legality and validity of the land acquisition award dated 18,02.2011 (Annexure P/l) wherein a portion ofthe land admeasuring 0.291 hectare from KhasraNo. 766 belonging to the petitioner, has been acquired under the provisions ofthe Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short 'the Act'). The petitioner further seeks quashing ofthe entire land acquisition proceedings initiated on issue of notification under section 4(1) read with section 17(1) ofthe Act on 14.07.2010 (Annexure P/l). 2. The facts, in brief, as projected by the petitioner are that the petitioner is the Mutwalli of the Sunni Hanfi Masjid Mowa Committee, Mova, Raipur (for short (the Committee'). The land bearing Khasra No. 766, total area 0.733 hectare situated at Patwari Halka No. 109, Mowa, Raipur, was under the ownership of the Committee. The Land Acquisition Officer issued notification under section 4(1) read with section 17(1) of the Act, on 14.07.2010, declaring the intention to acquire the land for the purpose of construction of approach road to ^ ^. L the Regional Science Centre at Mowa, Raipur. Out of the total acquired land, a part of the land admeasuring 0.733 hectare was owned by the petitioner. Thereafter, a declaration was made under the provisions of section 6(2) of the Act, on 09.11.2010 and the award was passed on 18.02.2011. However, afiter passing of the award in respect of determination of the compensation, the matter is pending consideration before the District Judge, in reference made under section 18 ofthe Act. 3. Shri Nande., leamed counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that initially the land was acquired for the purpose of constructing approach road to the Regional Science Centre. It was understood by the owner of the land that on account of construction of approach road, there would be no hurdle on the remaining part oftheland which was not the subject matter of acquisition. Now, the respondent No. 3 has decided to construct boundary wall along the approach road on both the sides. Thus, it is contrary to the purpose as specified in the notification issued under section 4(1) and 6(2) ofthe Act. Shri Nande further submits that the emergency clause under section 17(1) ofthe Act was invoked and as such, the petitioner was not afforded an opportunity to file objection under section 5(A) ofthe Act, 1894. On this account also, the impugned award is bad. Thus, the entire land acquisition proceeding deserves to be quashed. 4. On perusal ofthe documents, it is evident that the impugned award was passed on 18.02.2011 (Annexure P/4). The petitioner has not taken steps immediately to question the award on the ground of invocation of urgency clause. The urgency clause was invoked alongwith notification issued under section 4(1) of the Act on •^. vv ^;>:. ' I -. ^K^ 14.07.2010, the petitioner did not object the invocation of urgency clause. The petitioner allowed the proceedings to continue and ultimately the fmal award was passed. Even after passing ofthe fmal award on 18.02.2011, the petitioner has preferred this petition on 23.09.2011. At this stage, the proceeding cannot be questioned on the ground that the purpose was for construction of approach road to the Regional Science Centre, though, it was not made clear that there would be boundary wall on both the sides of the approach road. Once the land has been acquired for the approach road, if certain constmctions are made to protect the approach road, it cannot be held that raising wall across the road is contrary to the purpose specified in notification under section 4(1) as well as 6(2) ofthe Act. It is not the concem of the landowner how his land is used and whether the land is being used for the purpose for which it was acquired or for any other purpose. 5. It further appears that the petitioner has no intention to object invocation of urgency clause as the same has not substantially been raised. The second contention that in the identical situation, this Court has issued notice and granted interim relief, does not appear to be correct as for want of relevant documents, it cannot be held that grievance ofthe petitioners in those petitions were similar, though the same may have arisen from the said notification. The next contention that the possession ofthe land has not been taken over by the State Govemment, is also not supported by any material as normally, after passing of the award, the land vests in the Govemment immediately, free from all encumbrances under the provisions ofsection 16 ofthe Act, as submitted by the leamed Deputy Advocate General. ^ r '^ "^ o ^7 6. It is well settled principle of law that a writ petition questioning the award is not maintainable as after taking over the possession ofthe land, the same vests absolutely in the Government free from all encumbrances. Even under section 48 of the Act, 1894, the State Authority also cannot withdraw from acquisition afiter possession has been taken over. 7. This Court, in Manoj Rathi & Others v. State of Madhya Pradesh & Others 1, relying on various decisions of the Supreme Court in Municipal Corporation ofGreater Bombay v. Industrial Development Investment Co. Pvt. Ltd. & Others2, State of Rajasthan & Others v. D.R.Laxmi & Others3, Municipal Council, Ahmednagar & another v. Shah Hyder Beig & Others4, State of Karnataka & Another v. Sangappa Dayappa Biradar & Others , S-waika Properties Pvt. Ltd. & Another v. State of Rajasthan & Others , held that no exceptional or extraordinary grounds exist or raised to invoke extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to take a departure from the well settled principles oflaw. 8. Recently, the Supreme Court, in Sulochana Chandrkant Galande v. Pune Municipal Transport & Others7, "16. Thus, "free from encumbrances" means vesting of land in the State without any charge or burden in it. Thus, the State has absolute title/ownership over it. 17. ln Satendra Prasad Jain v.StateofU.P., this Court held that once land vests in the State free from all encumbrances, it cannot be ' W.P. No. 5875 of 2000, decided on 08.12.2010 2 (1996) 11 SCC501 JT 1996(9)8c 327 4 (2000) 2 SCC 48 5 (2005) 4 SCC 264 6 JT 2008 (2) SCC 280 7 (2010) 8 SCC 467 1 divested. The same view has been reiterated in A^adh Bihari Yadav v. State ofBihar, U.P. Jal Nigam v. Kalra Properties (P) Ltd., Pratap, Chandragauda Ramgonda Patil v. State of Maharashtra, Allahabad Development Authority v. Nasiruzzaman, State of Kerala v. M Bhaskaran Pillai, M Ramalinga Thevar v. State of T.N., Printers (Mysore) Ltd. v. M.A. Rasheed, Bangalore Development Authority v. R. Hanumaiah and Govt. ofA.P. v. SyedAkbar. 22. In view of the above, the law can be summarised that once the land is acquired, it vests in the State free from all encumbrances. It is not the concern of the landowner how his land is used and whether the land is being used for the purpose for which it was acquired or for any other purpose. He becomes persona non grata once the land vests in the State.Hehasa right to get compensation only for the same. The person interested cannot claim the right of restoration of land on any ground, whatsoever." 9. In view of the foregoing, this writ petition, being bereft of merit, is dismissed. No order asto costs. ^, Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge Amit