^^1^:^ ^•^•w^^ •• ^;\^r'" ^•^":. 9<cs^s ^^•" ® )^=?7- IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WRIT PETITION (C) No. ^l / 2009 Petitioner RESPONDENTS 1. 2. 3. Rambadan aged about 38 years, S/o Dakhal, By caste Gond, R/o Village Nevri Tahsil Khadgawa, Distt. Koriya VERSUS The State of Chhattisgarh,trough its Secretary Revenue Department Raipur The Collector cum Land Acquisition Officer, Koriya, Baikunthpur Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue) Chirmiri Distt. Koriya WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR Single Bench: Hon'ble Shri Manindra Mohan Shrivastava, J. Writ Petition (C) No.4591/2009 STJ Petitioner Respondent Rambadan Versus The State of Chhattisgarh and Others (Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India) Present: - Shri Anand Shukla, counset for the petitioner. Shri V. V. S. Murthy, Deputy Advocate General with Shri Surya Kant Mishra, Panel Lawyer for the State/respondents. ORAL ORDER (Passedon 08-02-2011) This petition has been filed by the petitioner, who claims to be the owner of the land comprised in Khasra No.87 of Village Nevri, Patwari Halka No.13, Rakba 0.30 Hectare, District Korea for issuance of direction to the respondents to pay compensation to the petitioner in respect of the land acquired for the purpose of construction of Kansabahra to Bhouta Marg. 2. Briefly: stated, the case of the petitioner is that the petitioner owns land 'odmeasuring 0.30 Hectare comprised in Khasra No.87 in P.H.No.13 of Village Nevri, District Korea. The Land Acquisition Officer initiated proceedings for acquisition of land and after drawing certain proceedings, notification dated 20- 10-2004 was issued, which was published on 18-02-2005 in the official gazette, declaring that the land described in the notification was required for public purposes. The land of the petitioner was also included in the said notification wherein Rakba 0.30 Hectare of Khasra Number 87 was also declared for public purposes. However, thereafter no further proceedings were drawn as contemplated under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, (For short" the Act of1894") .•ly-€\ ? 1 ^...^ -L but the road was constructed, including the land of the petitioner comprised in Khasra No.87. The respondents neither proceeded with the matter any further nor award was passed with the result that the land acquisition proceedings wherein declaration under Section 6 of the Act of 1894 was made vide , notification dated 20-10-2004, lapsed by operation of law as envisaged under Section 11 -A of the Act. 3. The respondents have now issued a fresh notification on 31-03-2010 published in official gazette on 16-04-2010. I i 4. Submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the land of the petitioner having not been acquired under the law, he could not be dispossessed. He submits that if there was any dispute with regard to measurement of land or claims of various persons as has been stated by the respondents in their return, the respondent authority ought not to have proceeded to take possession of land and construct road thereon. He further submits that unless the proceedings are drawn in accordance with the provisions of the Act of 1894 and unless an award as required under Section 1 1 of the Act of 1894 is passed, law does not permit to take possession of the land. Learned counsel further drew attention of this Court to the report dated 21-10-2009 (Annexure R-1) wherein the Revenue Inspector has clearly reported that 0.30 Hectare land comprised in Khasra No.87 has been used for construction of road. Learned counsel further submits that Panchnama (Annexure R-2) only states that none of the part of the land comprised in Khasra No.38, 41, 54 and 88 have been used for construction of road and Panchnama also clearly records that road has been constructed on part of the land comprised in Khasra No.87. Learned counsel also submits that according to the \ respondents themselves, land of the petitioner has been used for the purpose of \ . , construction of public road without the land acquisition proceedings drawn "^ '^ -^ '€^^ % "--.^s^^j /./ ,^ •^- earlier, brought to its logical conclusion with the resutt that the petitioner has been deprived of his property and no compensation has been paid to him, to which, he is entitled underthe law. 5. On the other hand, learned State counsel submitted that earlier a notification under Section 4 was issued initiating land acquisition proceedings and thereafter notification under Section 6 of the Act of 1894 was published on 18th of February, 2005. It is submitted that after, the road was constructed, and ^ien it was found that there were numerous inconsistency in Khasra Numbers, overwhich, road was built. Spot inspection was carried out by Revenue Inspector and Panchnama was also prepared. hle further submits that because of various inconsistencies, the proceedings drawn earlier were not concluded and those proceedings came to an end whereafter now fresh notification has been issued under Section 4 of the Act of 1894. He submits that in the subsequent proceedings of acquisition of land which has now been drawn, the matter would be considered and those, whose land are found used for construction of road, would be entitled to compensation in accordance with law. 6. I have considered the submission made by learned counsel for the parties and perused the records. 7. From the submission made by learned counsel for the parties and the pleadings and documents placed on record, it is found that earlier notification under Section 4 of the Act of 1894 was issued on 02-04-2004. Later on, notification under Section 6 of the Act was also published on 18-02-2005 (Annexure P-1). A perusal of the said notification of declaration shows that the land comprised in Khasra No.87 admeasuring 0.30 Hectare was inctuded. This clearly shows that a part of the land of the petitioner was declared to be required for public purposes. However, thereafter, the respondents did not draw further ^^^iil^ '%y ^ -^ proceedings towards acquisition of land. From the return of the respondents, it appears that the authorities came across the certain inconsistency, therefore, though did not proceed to take steps as are required under the provisions of the Act of 1894, the road was constructed using the land comprised in Khasra No.87. 8. The manner in which the land of a person could be acquired has been provided under the provisions of the Act of 1894. In the present case, it is not disputed that no emergency clause was invoked. The land of the petitioner could be acquired only in the manner prescribed under the law. Though, the proceedings were drawn up to the stages of declaration as required under Section 6 of the Act of 1894, thereafter, no further proceedings took place. Therefore, by operation of law, as envisaged under Section 11-A of the Act of 1894, tKe entire proceedings for acquisition of the land lapsed after a period of two years from the date of publication of the declaration under Section 6 of the Act of 1894. It however appears that without concluding the proceedings, the land of the petitioner was used for construction of road. The statutory scheme engrafted under the Act of 1894 clearly stipulates that after issuance of notification of declaration under Section 8 of the Act of 1894, proceedings as contemplated under Section 9, 10 and 11 ofthe Act of 1894 are requirecl to be "undertaken. The power to take possession of the land is derived from the provisions contained under Section 16 ofthe Act of 1894 which clearly provides that when the Collector has made an award under Section 11, he may take possession ofthe land, which shall thereupon vest absolutely in the Government, free from all encumbrances. Therefore, unless an award is made, there is no power with the authority to take possession of the land. In the present case, stage of passing of award did not .reach because no proceedings after declaration under Section 6 of the Act of 1894 were drawn. If at all, there were certain inconsistency with regard to either ownership of the land or measurement ^:'^^^, Q "i i. ^^' .^" -^ ^v' 1--^: of the land or extent of the land comprised in various Khasra Numbers for the purpose of construction of road, it was obligatory on the part of the respondent authority to initiate fresh proceedings, pass an award and then take possession. This, however, has not been done. 9. From the report of Revenue Inspector and Panchnama (Annexure R-1 & R-2 respectively) which have been placed on record by the respondents themselves, it is clearly borne out that the land admeasuring 0.30 Hectare foomprised in Khasra No.87 was also used for construction of road. Therefore, it is apparent that even without drawing the proceedings as required under the law, land of the petitioner was used for construction of road. It appears that the respondent authorities have now issued a fresh notification under sub section(1) of Section 4 of the Act of 1894 purporting to be land acquisition proceedings in respect of certain land, descriptions which have not been given, for construction ofthe same road. 10. Be that as it may, l have no hesitation in holding that the land of the petitioner was used for construction of the road without acquiring the same in accordance with the provisions contained in the Act of 1894. i-1. The question which now arises for consideration is that what relief could be granted to the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner may be paid appropriate compensation for the land which has already been taken and used for construction ofthe road. 12. Under these circumstances, it would be proper in the facts and circumstances of the case to direct the respondent No.2-Land Acquisition Officer to draw proper proceedings in respect of the land of the petitioner, determine compensation and pass an appropriate award as required under Section 11 of ^^-1-'1% I •^^ ^/ the Act of 1894. The entire exercise should be completed and compensation paid within a period of six months by the Land Acquisition Officer. 13. The petition is accordingly allowed. No orders as to cost. Sd/- Manindra Mohan Shrivastava Jude Tumane