Nafr High Court
Case Details
1 2025:CGHC:6208 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 708 of 2025 1 - Devi Lal S/o Ghasiya Aged About 45 Years R/o. Village Beladula, Tahsil Jaijaipur, District Sakti (C.G.) 2 - Shiv Prasad S/o Dewan Aged About 75 Years R/o. Village Beladula, SHOAIB ANWAR Digitally signed by SHOAIB ANWAR Date: 2025.02.06 15:46:52 +0530 Tahsil Jaijaipur, District Sakti (C.G.) 3 - Parmanand S/o Ramdayal Aged About 67 Years R/o. Village Beladula, Tahsil Jaijaipur, District Sakti (C.G.) 4 - Heera Ram Chandra S/o Ganga Prasad Aged About 49 Years R/o. Village Beladula, Tahsil Jaijaipur, District Sakti (C.G.) 5 - Ghanshyam S/o Pitamber Aged About 44 Years R/o. Village Beladula, Tahsil Jaijaipur, District Sakti (C.G.) 6 - Dhaneshwari D/o Rajendra Aged About 38 Years R/o. Village Beladula, Tahsil Jaijaipur, District Sakti (C.G.) 2 7 - Nirmala W/o Late Premchand Aged About 60 Years R/o. Village Beladula, Tahsil Jaijaipur, District Sakti (C.G.) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Public Works Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) 2 - Secretary Revenue Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) 3 - Collector Sakti, District Sakti (C.G.) 4 - Sub Divisional OfÏcer Revenue, Sakti, District Sakti (C.G.) 5 - Executive Engineer Public Works Department, Division Champa, District Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) 6 - Sub Divisional OfÏcer Public Works Department, Division Champa, District Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) (Cause title taken from CIS) For Petitioner(s)
Legal Reasoning
on the judgment of this Court in Tukaram Kana Joshi v. MIDCS wherein it was held that the State must comply with the procedure for acquisition, requisition, or any other permissible statutory mode. The State being a welfare State governed by the rule of law cannot arrogate to itself a status beyond what is provided by the Constitution. 12.10. This Court in State of Haryana. Mukesh Kumar held that the right to property is now considered to be not only a constitutional or statutory right, but also a human right. Human rights have been considered in the realm of 6 individual rights such as right to shelter, livelihood, health, employment, etc. Human rights have gained a multi-faceted dimension. 12.11. We are surprised by the plea taken by the State before the High Court, that since it has been in continuous possession of the land for over 42 years, it would tantamount to "adverse" possession. The State being a welfare State, cannot be permitted to take the plea of adverse possession, which allows a trespasser i.e. a person guilty of a tort, or even a crime, to gain legal title over such property for over 12 years. The State cannot be permitted to perfect its title over the land by invoking the doctrine of adverse possession to grab the property of its own citizens, as has been done in the present case. 12.12. The contention advanced by the State of delay and laches of the appellant in moving the Court is also liable to be rejected. Delay and laches cannot be raised in a case of a continuing cause of action, or if the circumstances shock the judicial conscience of the Court. Condonation of delay is a matter of judicial discretion, which must be exercised judiciously and reasonably in the facts and circumstances of a case. It will depend upon the breach of fundamental 9 rights, and the remedy claimed, and when and how the delay arose. There is no period of limitation prescribed for the courts to exercise their constitutional jurisdiction to do substantial justice. 12.13. In a case where the demand for justice is so compelling, a constitutional court would exercise its jurisdiction with a view to promote justice, and not defeat it.” 7. In view of the above discussion and the law laid-down by Hon’ble
Arguments
: Shri Yogesh Chandra, Advocate. For Respondent/State : Shri Shreyansh Mehta, Panel Lawyer. 3 Hon'ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru , Judge Order on Board 04.02.2025 1. By the present writ petition the petitioners who are land owners and resident of village Beladula, Tahsil Jaijaipur, District- Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) preferred the present writ petition seeking a direction towards the respondents for payment of compensation towards the land, which has been used by the respondents for construction of road from Jajaipur to Gobara. The description of the land of the petitioners which has been used by the respondents vide (Annexure P/2) are as under :- Sl. Name of the petitioners Father/Husband Khasra No. No. Name 1. Parmanand Chandra Lt. Shri Ramdayal 305, 306/38 Chandra 2. Devilal Chandra Lt. Shri Ghasiyaram 305,306/14 3. Shivdas Chandra Lt. Shri Dewan 305,306/15 Chandra Chandra 4. Smt. Nirmala Chandra Shri Premchand 305,306/27,28, Chandra 29 5. Ajay Chandra Wagerah Lt. Shri Ganpath 305,306/30,31, 6. Saroj Chandra Wagerah Lt. Shri Rajendra 305,306/37 Chandra 32 Chandra 7. Ghanshyam Chandra Lt. Shri Pitambar 305,306/38 Wagerah Chandra 8. Dhaneswari Chandra Lt. Shri Rajendra 305,306/39 kumar Chandra The aforesaid land of the petitioners have been used by the respondents for construction of W.B.M. Road from Jajaipur to 4 Malkharoda and the same was widened from Jajaipur to Gobara, but the land has not been acquired and no compensation has been paid to the petitioners. 2. (I) Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners are land owner of the land as stated above and the land of the petitioners have been used by the respondents for construction of W.B.M. Road, but the respondents have not paid any compensation to the petitioners and no acquisition of the said land was made by the respondents before construction of the road. (II) The petitioners further submits that the land of agriculturist of village Bhothideah also used for construction of road and compensation has been paid to the land owner. The petitioners by referring the order of the writ petition bearing WP No. 4156/2005 ‘Chandra Prakash @ Chandrika Prasad Chandra and others vs. State of Chhattisgarh and others’ submits that though the villagers of village Bhothideah preferred a writ petition seeking compensation for similar issue but as compensation has been paid in lieu of their land, the writ petition was withdrawn by the said villagers. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the State submits that if the land of the petitioners has been used for construction of W.B.M. Road, the respondent authorities would make spot inspection and demarcate the land and in that process, if the land of the petitioner found to be utilized, necessary steps will be taken for acquisition of the land and to grant compensation to the petitioners, in accordance with the rules. 4. I have heard learned counsel for both the parties. 5 5. From the pleadings and documents, it is evident that the road has been constructed on the land of the petitioners, which has not been disputed by the respondents and it is also not in dispute that the said construction of road has been made without acquiring the land of the petitioners and without paying any compensation to the petitioners. 6. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Vidya Devi vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and Others, reported in (2020) 2 SCC 569 observed that the respondents-State cannot disposes of their property without any legal sanction and without following due process of law and depriving their payment of just compensation which is a fundamental right. Hon’ble Supreme Court has held thus in para 12.8 to 12.13 which reads as under :- “12.8. The contention of the State that the appellant or her predecessors had "orally” consented to the acquisition is completely baseless. We find complete lack of authority and legal sanction in compulsorily divesting the appellant of her property by the State. 12.9. In a democratic polity governed by the rule of law, the State could not have deprived a citizen of their property without the sanction of law. Reliance is placed
Decision
Supreme Court the writ petition is disposed off with a direction to the respondents to demarcate the area belonging to the petitioners which 7 has been used for construction of road and thereafter to initiate proceeding for acquisition of the said area in accordance with the provision of law. 8. Let the demarcation be completed within a period of three months from today and thereafter the land acquisition proceeding be drawn and complete the same within a reasonable period. 9. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of as stated above. Sd/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) Judge Shoaib