H IGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR Writ Petition No. 1279 of 2002 Petitioner Bhaktraj Lodhi Versus Respondent State of Chhattisg‘agh’ Post for pronouncement ofthe Judgment and Order on 17 -10-2008 Sdl- l ' Satish ’ Judge K. Agnihotri ‘: @ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR Writ Petition No. 1279 of 2002 PETITIONER Bhaktraj Lodhi, S/o Shri Kartik Lodhi, aged about 55 years, R/o Village Khajri, Post Patewa, District Rajnandgaon (Chhattisgarh). Versus RESPONDENT State of Chhattisgarh, through Collector, Rajnandgaoh, Chhattisgarh. (Writ petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India) Single Bench : Hon’ble Shri Satish K. Agnihotri, J Present : Shri Ashok Das Vaishnav, counsel for the petitioner. '- Shri A.S. Kachhawaha, Dy. Adv. General forthe State. ft“ :g’f' JUDGMENT & ORDER (Passed on this QH‘day of October, 2008) By this petition, the petitioner impugns the order dated 8—2-2002 (Annexure-PI?) passed by the Commissioner, Raipur, in case No.83/A—19/ 2000-01 arising out of the order dated 9—8—1995 (Annexure-P/6) passed by the Collector, Rajnandgaon, in revenue case No.44/A-19(6) Year 1993—94, whereby the order passed by the Collector was affirmed and the appeal was dismissed. 2) The indisputable facts, in nutshell, as projected by the petitioner, are that the petitioner made an application on 30—1-1985 (Annexure-P/1) to the Collector, Rajnandgaon for grant of patta of Government land bearing khasra No.224/1 area 0.45 acre in lieu of acquisition of the petitioner’s land bearing khasra No. 557 area 0.56 acre for the purpose of construction of road by the Government. The petitioner, without claiming any compensation, sought for grant of patta of the adjoining Government land bearing khasra No. 224/1 area 0.45 acre. It was further stated in the ‘said application that the petitioner has incurred some expenses in 'the development of the said land. The petitioner moved one more 1 application on 8—2-1994 (Annexure—P/4) for grant of the same land in lieu of acquisition of the above stated land belonging to the petitioner. W 3) According to the petitioner, Patwari of village Patewa submitted a report dated 19—7—1994 (Annexure-P/5) to Nayab Tahsildar, Rajnandgaon, stating that the villagers have no objection and there would not be any inconvenience to ‘Nistar’ of the villagers, if the said land was allotted to the petitioner. On the basis of the said report‘ recommendation was made to the Collector. The Collector, by order dated 9—8-1995 (Annexure-P/6) rejected the application of the petitioner on the ground that the said land cannot be allotted to the petitioner unless the same is set apart from exercise of ‘Nistar’ under the provisions of Section 23L,(2) of the Chhattisgarh 'Land Revenue Code, 1959 (for short “the Code, 1959”). Since there was no diversion of land from ‘Nistar’ to Abadi land, the same cannot be allotted to the petitioner. 4) Being aggrieved by the order dated 9-8-1995 passed by the collector, Rajnandgaon, the petitioner preferred an appeal under the provisions of Section 44 (2) of the Code, 1959 to the Commissioner, Raipur. The Commissioner by order dated 8-2-2002 (Annexure-P/7) dismissed the appeal affirming the order passed by the Collector, Rajnandgaon. Commissioner rejected the appeal on the following grounds : “(31) mahm?3x(3)$wwwf§aa§m wilawmmasflmmw (a) W§fawmwmahmv?3w(?)$ WW?§WH§TWWWW§% maammsntwwaafralaaa W?3@(Q)$Wia%tmaqwa‘§i%m WE‘ WWalawawhgésawana—w ewawhgssatwhw$mmsg maaetthhahramtdtwas‘lm arms“ Thus, this pettion. i 5) Shri Vaishnav, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, would submit that the petitioner has donated the land on the ground that the adjoining Government grass land bearing khasra No.224/1 area 0.45 acre may be allotted to the petitioner in lieu of acquisition of his own land bearing khasra No.557 area 0.56 acre. Shri Vaishnav would further submit that the provisions of Sections 234 & 237 of the Code, 1959 have wrongly been interpreted by the authorities, as the land after setting apart from ‘Nistar’ could have been allotted to the petitioner, particularly in view of the fact that the villagers have ‘réoeobjection to allot the said land to the petitioner, as according to the report of the Patwari, the villagers had no inconvenience if the said land is set apart from ‘Nistar’ and allotted to the petitioner. Shri Vaishnav would also submit that alternatively the petitioner may be granted proper compensation with penal interest at the rate of 18% per annum as also an amount of Rs.1,00,000l— as solatium on the ground that the petitioner has been deprived of the benefits of the land since 1985. When the petitioner‘s own land admeasuring 0.56 acre was acquired by the State Government and no compensation was paid or land in lieu of acquisition was also not allotted. ‘ ,\ 6) Per contra, Shri Ashutosh Singh Kachhawaha, learned Deputy Advocate .._.. General appearing on behalf of the State, would submit that the land being ‘Nistar’ land cannot be allotted to an individual person as the requirement of ‘Nistar’ cannot be curtailed as the land, which is sought to be allotted, is a grass land. The State is under an obligation to pay the compensation as admissible in accordance with law. 7) After having heard the rival submissions of learned counsel appearing for the respective parties, perused the pleadings and the documents appended thereto. It is an admitted fact that the land is a grass land and the same is meant for ‘Nistar’ of all the villagers. Even if the villagers have no objection, keeping in view the growing population, it appears that the decisions of the Collector and the Commissioner in passing the orders dated 9-8-1995 & 8-2—2002 are just and proper. However, this Court cannot lost sight of the fact that the petitioner has been deprived of the benefits of his'private land for more than two decades without payment of compensation. 8) lt is well settled principle of law that the compensation has to be paid on or before taking possession ofthe land. ln the instant case, the Collector has failed to pay the amount of such compensation‘on orbefore taking possession of the land belonging to the petitioner. Thus, the respondent authority is directed to determine the compensation in accordance with the provisions of Sections 23 (1), (1A), sub-section (2) of Section 23 and other relevant provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for shon‘ “the Act, 1894’3 with interest as contemplated under Section .34 of the Act, 1894 at the rate of 15% per annum from the date on which possession of the land was taken till the amount of compensation is paid. 9) For the reasons stated hereinabove, the petition is allowed to the above extent with costs quantified to be a sum of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand Only). Sd/— l l . Satish K. Agnihotri i _ g i Judge . a. f r r . l l )sAVL