-c..^.-'-^^. IN_THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BILASPUR (C.G.) WRIT PE TITIO N N0.621 OF 2QQ4 / PETITIONER : Mahaveer,S/oLateShiiBalaram, Aged about 53 years, R/o ;, Tehsil & i..*"^-7**)., ~~~""~"J'~"' " "*°' -^^'^^^^^^^ District: DurS' Chhattisgarh. VERSUS- ft^ n <• {^' RESPONDENTS •^•'y^ ^0' -^' 1. Staite ofChhatdsgaih, Tlirough: Prindpal Secrctaiy, GovernmentofChhattisgarh,, D.K.S. Building, Mantralaya, Raipur(C.G.). 2. The Collector Cum Land Acquisition Officer, Dm-g, DistrictDiM'g(C.G-). 3. The Commissioner, Mmiidpal Coiporation, Durg, Dist Durg(C.G) IT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 2^6/227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA The petitioner, above-named mostrespectfully submite as under: - ^ ^IIH^TT ^n+SICft ~3^ ^I^M^ "S'^tTTH^/i^^l^^ .......uj^,tte....^.v^ 200 ^T^T TR^ ('^t3^t?) <3??^['WR^IW ^I?3?l^[^RN> '?^iTW ^f^a ^IT^? 11-2-2005' Smt. Renu Kochar, counsei fo| Shri Praveen Das, P.L. for thq Shri Sanjay K. Agrawal, coun^ The petitioner has preferr^ 226/227 of the Constitution pf II respondents to release the iand of proceedlngs, Brief facts leading to fiiing petitioner's father was owner of with the bank of river Shivnath and case No.7A/82, year 89-90, was Officer, Durg. On 16th June, 19891 Land Acquisition Aet was issued Section 6 of the Land Acquisition 15-1-90, the father of the pet| Acquisition Officer and fiied the the Land Acquisition Officer pas^ arnount of award was ordered to b^ dsposited tiil 10-2-95 on which deposited. Even though in the -been ves-tec—ifithc ^ovcmmcnt, ^i^i<rt<fli *iM<yff "^ 'fe1^ 'd^$R ^r ^tRiH ^TT^T h the petitioner. State/respondents No.l and 2. el for respondent No,3. |d this writ petition under Article ^dia with a prayer to command the the petitioner from the acquisition of this writ petition are that the fhe agricultural bnd situated aiong in respectlof which iand acquisition registered by the Land Acquisition notification under Section 4 of the and thereafter, notifjcatjon under Act was issued on 22-12-1989. On tioner appeared before the Land claim. Subsequentiy/ on 21-1-1991, ;ed an awarcS of Rs.2,59,512/" csnd deposited dnd that amoun1;^as not ~"""\ '' ./ ^u>^^ date ^^ oniy amount <©vlAj^te Rev^nue Record the iand is sdd to have Gt,PRJ—FS/350—12/2000—50,000., but • as on datG ' the &Gtiti9 ^ ^^ I'T ?:55[ ^TPT^R, ^Tl1y41(o, f^<ni'H>4,< WlQ'ITWW^ •^ 200 W^T TR^ ( ^i^®!^?) ^ii^i ^T^rt^ 'TOT^T^l^RTO ^ -^ ^cjTW^ft^^?^l •c^- pos-s^ssion tHe conlp !an|d contlnues with the physical originaiiy acquired for water from the requirement of stiii lying vacant even after the .the petitioner iearnt that the garden on . the bnd; which -the newspaper, which.was not for the awarded. Return has fiied on bel|i has mentjoned fhat the ianfc respondents for vvater suppjy pr-oj^ awarded - and ^was deposited petitioner dld not chailenge the to 'become final, and possessi^ the Municipai Corporation, Durg, responden.ts as per Section 16 of t^ petitior. is not rnaintainabie. It physica! possession of the acquired acquired includin9 the petitior| distribution'pojntand smai! eiectri^ the .part of acquired bnd and in th| of the bnd, theiand was, proj^ct, but the. petitioner's land is in respondents and the said land is lietjon of the project. Thereafter, Mur|icipai Cor'poration is estabilshing a tetltioner came to know through ori.ginal purpose' and-compensation G}ii^t^<^^ ^i^<nT "^ 1^st if^R^ ^•si^rsT^T |aif of respondent No.3 in which it has been finaily vested in the ^ct, cornpensatlon has aiready on 10-2-95. The father of the proceeding arsd aliowed the )H has aiready been handed over to the iand yested fina!!y with the e Land Acquisitlon Act and the writ i| denied that the petltioner is in land. Totai area.5.17 acre of bnd ?s father iand and pump house, power house were constructed on ^ remaining part of fand garden for acduisition a^ lorter Gi^Rj—FS/350-^€2^^MMi-^tAQ.(€idJ^^ to watcr suppiy system) has been deveioped by T^T ^l^ll<ri4/ ^Tl1<rj^(o, [^crll^S^i w-s^r^p-?!^ 37?^l^lf^i^- ^IT ^t¥?'iTRN' A •p.-.- /-•^" ••^200 ^Ti^T 'q^^C^qfg^?) ^^"TW^ftcT 3TT^| 3- Municipa! Corporation, Durg. It incorr-ect to say that the iand acq the corporation/ I haye heard iearned couns^i for the parties. Learned counse! for the question was n.ot utiiized for th^ therefore, jtshould haye rei^ On the other hand, learned| that.jt is incorrect to ^ay tha1^ utilized for the purpose It was ac^uired, Since totai land of 5<17 acres was acquired and on the part of and smail electricpowerhouse we^ has utiiized for the publlc scheme.It cannot be said that it point raised by learned counse! Qt, PRJ—FS/350—12/2000—50,000. Zn the matter of fiulam Mustafa •tha+- ^Nfo<fll '^R^ff"? fe^ ifa^K ^^tfaH3t?^?T s aiso for the public purpose. It is jired was in excess of requirement of ^etitioner submits that the 'and in purpose for which it was acquired, •ased in favour of the petitioner. counsel for respondent No.3 submits the iand in question has- not which pump house, dlstribution point, le constructed and the remaining iand park which is atso part of the water has not utiiized. Therefore, the for the petitioner is devoid of any ?rierit. Even otherwise, the poir^t raised by iearned counsel for the petitioner is squarely covered by '|'he decisions of Hon'ble Apex Court in the' cases .of •Mystafal and others V. Th@ State of Maharashtra and oth©rsreport^d in AIR 1977 SC 448 and'$ovt. of .A.P. and V. Sy@d Akbc^ reported j-n JT 2004 (10) SC 569. (Supra) the Hon'ble Apex Court heid ^" ^~^[ ^ij^iKn^ ^TTi^ji(o, t^nray ^nwTrwRi^ '^ 200 ^I^T T^f (1^?1®1^) ^ii^T^lfrri^ ^TT^Iit^lsCTW <r 'n v^. ^^fTW^^ ^lt^T ^ "There is no princjpie o-j compulsory acquisition ^tanc long Jater the requiring a pubiic purpose other ^l' the Section 5 (3) declar^tion law by which a vaiid Itands voided because |iuthority diverts it to ihan the one s'tated in ^r hds Learned counsei for the pej compensation aniount awarded to th4 If the pe'titioner or his fath^ of compensation, then he ought to the appropriate time for ©nhancejnent Section 18 of the Land Acquisltiorj that 'any person interested who written appiication T-O the Coliecj referred by the Coiiector for the his objection be to the measurem^nt compensation, thepersons to whoni of the compensation among the per^ of this provision, the arguments petitioner is not tenabie. Another point raised by iea^? that the petitioner was in possessi^n depositin-9 the land revenue/but jn argument of learned counsei for t^e ^i^fa41i *ii^<riT "^ fst<l ^f^$R '^3?RfR3^T Htioner further submits that the petitioner is too low, was dissatisfied with the amount have moved appropriate Forum at of the compensation as per Act, 1894. Section 18 envisages not accepted the award may, by tor, reqyire that the matter be Idetermination of the Court/where of the land, the amount of the it is payable, or the apportionment |ons interested.' Therefore, in yiew acjvanced by learned counse! for the x^ned counsel for the petitioner is of the land tili 2002 and he was ^iew of the provisions of Section 16, ^e petitioner is de'void of any merit, Gt, PRJ—FS/350—12/2000—50,000. ^^T V^NI<VR, '3^RTT^, [®l<y1l^^< W^^T^W^ '^ 200 w^r TE^^ (^f^f^f) ^^'^T'f^iT^ ^i?^?i^l^^t^ -\..-—' -^ Barve ^^STW ^f^l 3TT^r as Section 16 of the Land Acquisit| the CoIIector has made an awarj possession of the !and, which shai {©ovemment});free frQm ai! encum award vested in trse ^overnmentl speclficaiSydenied in the return t| petitioner was in possession of the In view of the above, I do petition, is iiabie to be dismiss^d Consequently/ M.(W<)P. No.{ stand disposed of. c^>i^I<r?<fli *4i^<yii ^f fsL^I ifa^K ^^RlH3^T on Act, 1894, envisages that 'when under Section 11, he may take thereupon (vest absoiutely in the ^rances.' Therefore, the bnd after and moreover, respondents have lat it is incorrect to say that the in question. ict flnd any substance in this writ and it is accordingly dismissed. ^44/2004 and I.A. No.678/2005 Sd/- L.C. Bhadoo Judge '^ ^ ^7 '^ ^ . / Gi.PRJ—FS/330—12/2000—50,000.