Kj^ va •'ws HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE CHHATTISGARH: BiLASPUR SINGLE BENCH : HON'BLE SHRI S.R. NAYAK, CJ. Writ Petition No. 4779 of 2006 PETITIONER F¥- RESPONDENTS Vs. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. Sundermani Patel, S/o. Shri Fatteram, Aged about 63 years, R/o. Village Nawapara, (Dabhara), Tahsil Dabhara, District Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) State of ChhatBsgarh Through Hs Secretary, Water Resources Department, Mantralaya, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (C.G.) Coltector, Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) Chief Engineer, Water Resouroes Department, Bilaspur Superintending Engineer, Minimata Hasdeo Bango Canal Project, Water Resourees Department, Janjgir, District Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) Executive Engineer, Minimata Hasdeo Bango Canal Project, Water Resources Department, Division No.4, Dabhara, District Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) Present: Shri Amrito Das, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Sanj'ay S. Agrawal, learned G.A. for the State of ChhatUsgarh and its authorities. ORALORDER (Passed on 11m September, 2006) The grievance of the petitioner, in brief, is this: The State in exercise of eminent domain power has acquired 0.247 acres out of 0.61 acres of land comprised in KhasraNo.917 situated at c -^- P.H.No.10, Village Dabhara, Tahsil Dabhara, District Janjgir-Champa under the provisions of Land Acquisition Act, 1894, but, Uie respondents State Authorities highhandedly and without authority of law are constructing canal across the left out land in Khasra No.917 which is not acquired at all. So alleging, the petitioner has sought for mandamus commanding the respondents to adequately compensate the peUUoner for the use of the land which is not acquired as per approved market value and also to pay damages for the deprh/ation of the property of the peUh'oner without recourse to law with interest @ 18% per annum. ?*Y (2) The dispute brought before this Court by way of this writ peWon for more than one reason cannot be entertained. Firstly, the Court cannot direct the State and State authorfties to acquire the land. Whether the land in question is required for any publlc purpose or not should be left to the Government to decide and if it want the same for any public purpose, then, to initiate appropriate proceedings under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 or any other enabling provisions. The eminent domain power vested in tfie State Govemment cannot be directed to be exercised in a particular manner or method. If the Court were to do so, it would be outstepping Hs legitimate jurisdiction of jurisdictional review under Article 226 of the Constitution. But, ifthe State and State Authorffies wlthout recouree to law without acquiring the land either under the land acqulsition Act or any other enabling provisions highhandedly teke over or use ttie private land, it is for the concerned ownere ofsuch land to workout their legal remedies by way of prwate law review remedies like declaration, injunctlon and damages, as the case may be, to suit their all grievances. The High Court in such sltuation cannot be converted into a civil Court to adjudicate upon such issues and grant the remedies of declaration, injuncBon and I'', damages. That is exactly what the peUUoner has sought in this writ peUtion though it is not couched in such terms. (3) In the result, 1 dismiss the wr'rt p^Uon, howsver, resenring liberty to the petitioner to avail of private law review remedies indicated above befbre the jurisdictional c'lvilCourt. Nocosts. Sd/- Chief Justice yp\ *'" lan