m m v. m u wBE coagou ”Egg; “gag” owZoam w? Eww E Q35 Ewap Egg E55 wag,Eaga 8m ga Qo§5mmoawwo§kwv~§ 89639; @ggr 5E5: owSbwmo 2%? g g g Zowwk . HQ35 3&05 Hag; EEoEu DmnyaEgg Aav m w d5 GoaoQoH g9 Q3?» EMmwB—BQ AOQV mg Ugoua Ohma AwQQEav gar DmEQ Eg Aamv. Hmwmmamm v Engoah Hmrwm EEOE. gin" g9, §~H H,ww‘EHHOZ _§Q§E.5w waging” omgm wag Eww 20 Nw WHQBW EEoB. Hg 3§§ DEQ g Aa ggmxoamgngmmaamvocnagoggg @ggr Hgana owambwmw ggp gun ,EWN Zo N¥ WH0:65539.? guru:SEQ? Qga EEmE A8V g § §Wmdm wgn owgmg Ag EQaRg QQEn g w GWm gebwwmuvunamv HIQH CQURT OF CPLHATUSGALKH ALBILASPUR 6/1” WRIT PETITION No. 5352 of2005 Dhaneshwar & Others. WRSUS RESPONDENTS : State of Chhaaisgarh & Others. WRIT PETIUON Il/A 226/227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA SB: Hon’ble Shri Satish K. Agnihotri, J. Present: Shri Awadh Tripathi, Advocate for the petitioners. Shri Shashank Thakur, Panel Lawyer for the State/respondents. ORDER ORAL (Passed on 12 day of August, 2010) 1. By this petition, the petitioner seeks a direction to make payment of compensation to the petitioners as 64.679 acre land owned by them, which had been acquired Without their consent and payment of compensation, alongwith interest at the rate of 10%, on 06/04/1959. . It is indisputable that the land of the petitioners admeasuring 64.679 acre situated at village Nayaparakala, Kauhakuda Arand, Charaud and Sindhupali, District Mahasamund, as mentioned in para 5.4 of the petition, had been acquired by the State Government way back on 06.04.1959, without paying compensation. 3. According to learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, the poor Villagers have been running from pillar to post approaching the authorities personally and making representations, but nothing has yielded till date. The petitioners have been deprived of their constitutional rights as enshrined under Article 300-A ofthe Constitution oflndia’ 4. Shri Thakur, Ieamed Panel Lawyer appearing for the State/respondents, relying on its return, submits that due process was followed for acquisition of the lands of the petitioners but admittedly, no compensation was determined and paid to the owners ofthe above-stated land. . Indisputably, the land acquisition proceeding was initiated. However, the compensation was not determined and aid to the petitioners before taking possession of the land in dispute. The petitioners have been deprived of their fundamental right as it was in the year 1959. The fundamental right to property was taken away from Part III of the Constitution and laced under Article 300-A as constitutional right in Chapter IV of Part XII of the Constitution by the Constitution (Forty-fourth Amendment) Act, 1978 w.e.f 20.06.1979. . Law is Well settled on the point that a person cannot be deprived of his right to property Without following due process of law, i.e. determination and payment of compensation-before taking possession ofthe land. The Supreme Court, in Hindustan Petroleum Corpn. Ltd. v. Darius Shapur Chennai & Others], observed as under: “6. It is not in dispute that Section 5-A of the Act confers a valuable right in favour of a person whose lands are sought to be acquired. Having regard to the provisions contained in Article 300—A of the Constitution, the State in exercise of its power of “eminent domain” may interfere with the right of property of a person by acquiring the same but the same must be. for a public purpose and reasonable compensation therefor must be paid. 9. It is trite that hearing given to a person must be an effective one and not a mere formality. Formation of opinion as regards the public purpose as also suitability thereof must be preceded by application of mind as regards consideration of relevant factors and rejection of irrelevant ones. The State in its decision-making process must not commit any misdirection in law. It is also not in dispute that Section 5-A of the Act confers a valuable important right and having regard to the provisions contained in Article 300-A 0f the Constitution it has been held to be akin to a fundamental right.” ’ 1 (2005) 7 scc 627 p p . @ 8. Further, the Supreme Court, in State ofKerala & another v. Peoples Union fbr Civil Liberties, Kerala’State Unit & Othersz, observed as under: “88. When a person acquires an indefeasible right, he can be deprived therefrom only by taking recourse to the doctrine of eminent domain. If a person is sought to be deprived of an indefeasible right acquired by him, he should be paid an amount of compensation. In a case of this nature, therefore, where an amount of compensation has not actually been tendered, the vendees of the land could not be deprived of their right to be dispossessed. In that View of the matter, a distinction must be made between a case where an amount of compensation has been paid and in a case Where it has not been.” 9. Having regard to the facts situation of the case, wherein the petitioners have been waiting since April, 1959 to get relief of compensation, it would be just and proper and in the interest ofjustice to direct the State Government to determine the compensation of the respectivelands and make payment thereon to the petitioners, in accordance with the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, after due verification and affording an opportunity of hearing to the land owners. 10.If the compensation is determined as on the date of acquisition, in accordance with the provisions of the Act, 1894, the petitioners shall be entitled to compensation with interest at the rate of 9% per annum. The respondents may alternatively consider determination of compensation in accordance with the provisions of the Act, 1894 on the date, this petition was tiled. In that event, the petitioners shall be entitled to compensation with interest at the rate of 9% per annurn from the date of filing of the writ petition till payment of compensation. ll. With the aforesaid observation and direction, the Writ petition is allowed. 12. No order asto costs. sw- ‘ Satish K. Agnihotri ‘ ' Judge ‘ Z (2009) s scc 46