Nafr High Court
Case Details
1 2025:CGHC:4133 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR FAM No. 166 of 2017 1. Kanhaiya Patel S/o Rajkumar Patel, Aged About 70 Years Occupation Retired Government Servent R/o Village Jatri, P.S. And Tahsil Pusour, District Raigarh Chhattisgarh. ... Appellant versus 1. Executive Engineer Project Of Kelo Pariyojna, Division Kakha, Raigarh, District Raigarh Chhattisgarh., Chhattisgarh ... Respondent For Appellant
Legal Reasoning
: Mr. Vineet Kumar Pandey, Advocate For Respondent : Mr. Santosh Soni, Govt. Advocate with Ms. Mukta Tripathi, Panel Lawyer SB: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Parth Prateem Sahu Order on Board 22/1/2025 1. Challenge in this appeal under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 is to the order dated 29.6.2017 passed in Civil Case No.212/2011 by which learned 1st Additional District Judge, Raigarh has dismissed reference application of appellant filed under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. 2 2. Facts of the case, in brief, is that appellant filed an application under Section 18 of the Act of 1894 mentioning that land of his ownership and possession is situated in Patwari Halka No.28, village Jatri, District Raigarh. By the Notification under Section 4 of the Act of 1894, certain lands situated in village Jatri were acquired for the Kelo Project, in which 0.109 hectare land of Khasra No.408/2 belonging to the appellant was also acquired. The Land Acquisition Officer passed an award on 5.11.2010, in which compensation of Rs.50,502/- for acquisition of land was determined treating the land as unirrigated land. Dissatisfied with the award of compensation appellant submitted an application under Section 18 of the Act of 1894 before the Collector, Raigarh to refer the matter to the reference Court and the same was referred to the District Judge, Raigarh. In the said application, the appellant has sought enhancement of compensation awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer pleading that the land acquired was irrigated land. After recording evidence of appellant, the District Judge rejected the reference application holding that appellant failed to adduce sufficient evidence to establish that acquired land was irrigated land. 3. Learned counsel for appellant would submit that appellant is owner of land bearing different Khasra numbers including Khasra No.405/1 and 408/2 situated in village Jatri, Tahsil 3 Pusour, District Raigarh. A tubewell is installed over the land bearing Khasra No.405/1 and for which appellant has also obtained electricity connection from the Electricity Department, which is evident from electricity bills filed as Ex.P-2 to Ex.P-18. Said tubewell is also being used for irrigating land bearing Khasra No.408/2. Earlier one land acquisition proceeding was initiated by the Land Acquisition Officer under Land Acquisition Case No.34/A-82/2011-12 in which part of land bearing Khasra No.408/2 was acquired as irrigated land. Document showing decision on the objection raised by appellant in previous land acquisition proceeding and award of compensation in respect of the part of Khasra No.408/2 treating it to be irrigated land are filed as Ex.P-25. Learned District Judge committed gross illegality in not considering Ex.P-25 while deciding reference application. Appellant has proved by adducing cogent evidence that the land bearing Khasra No.408/2, part of which was acquired by the Land Acquisition Officer, is irrigated land and to prove this fact, he has also examined the Patwari as AW-1. 4. Learned State Counsel vehemently opposing submissions of learned counsel for appellant, would submit that learned District Judge in the impugned award has made categorical observation that appellant failed to prove his case by leading cogent and admissible piece of evidence that land bearing 4 Khasra No.408/2 is an irrigated land. Mere passing of an award at an earlier point of time in respect of part of the land in itself will not be sufficient to prove the fact that land of Khasra No.408/2 is irrigated land. Hence, the compensation determined by the Land Acquisition Officer does not require any interference. 5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record including the impugned award. 6. From perusal of the record as also submission made by learned counsel for appellant, it is not in dispute that tube-well which is stated to be on the land of appellant, is situated on land bearing Khasra No.405/1. Appellant has filed map (Ex.P- 6) issued by the Halka Patwari concerned for the purpose of obtaining electricity connection, however, there is no mention of Khasra No.408/2 in this map (Ex.P-6), so as to ascertain that land bearing Khasra No.408/2 is nearly situated to Khasra No.405/1. Halka Patwari, who was examined on behalf of appellant before the District Judge, has stated in his statement that land of khasra Nos.408/2 and 405/1 are different lands. Tube-well is on land bearing Khasra No.405/1. He has shown his inability to tell the distance between land bearing Khasra No.405/1 and 408/2. 7. Main contention of the appellant is based on Ex.P-25 that in earlier land acquisition proceeding, part of land of Khasra 5 No.408/2, which was subject matter of acquisition, was shown as irrigated land and accordingly the amount of compensation was awarded. In that land acquisition proceeding also, appellant has raised objection with regard to the quantum of compensation, which was decided vide Ex.P-25 on the basis of spot inspection report done by the revenue authorities concerned in which it was not mentioned that land bearing Khasra No.408 is irrigated land. 8. Appellant has examined himself as AW-2 before the District Judge and in his examination-in-chief filed in the shape of affidavit under Order 18 Rule 4 CPC there is no whisper that land bearing Khasra No.408/2 is being irrigated from the tube- well installed on the land bearing Khasra No.405/1. 9. It is for the applicant filing application under Section 18 of the Act of 1894 to prove his case by producing cogent and reliable piece of evidence. From the documents evidence available on record it is not clearly appearing that land bearing Khasra No.408/2 is an irrigated land. If for the sake of argument, it is presumed that appellant is correct in saying so that he is irrigating his land from tube-well installed at Khasra No.405/1, he could have examined nearby agriculturists in this regard to prove the said fact, however, no such witness has been examined by him. 6 10. Ex.P-2 and Ex.P-3 are the Khasra of the land owned by appellant and the same have been issued under the signature of the Data Entry Operation. In document Ex.P-3 there is a handwritten endorsement that land is irrigated from own tube- well. However, the person who made such handwritten endorsement has not been examined before the District Judge to prove the same and being so, such handwritten endorsement would not be admissible in evidence because it is not proved as to on what basis handwritten endorsement was made. 11. For the foregoing reasons, this Court does not find any illegality or perversity in the order passed by the learned District Judge dismissing reference application of appellant filed under Section 18 of the Act of 1894. This appeal being sans merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs. SYED ROSHAN ZAMIR ALI Digitally signed by SYED ROSHAN ZAMIR ALI roshan/- Sd/- (Parth Prateem Sahu) Judge