Afr High Court · 2025
Case Details
Page 1 of 24 (WPC No. 5918 of 2010) SISTA SOMAYAJULU Digitally signed by SISTA SOMAYAJULU Date: 2025.08.15 11:14:19 +0530 2025:CGHC:41123 AFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 5918 of 2010 Order reserved on: 30-7-2025 Order delivered on: 14-8-2025 1. Panchanand Gupta, S/o Late Laikhan Gupta, aged about 51 years, Occupation Agriculture, R/o Village Badebhandar, Tahsil Pussaur, District Raigarh, Chhattisgarh. 2. Smt. Shashumukhi (Died and Deleted) ... Petitioner versus 1. State of Chhattisgarh, Through the Secretary, Department of Revenue, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 2. Collector, Raigarh-cum-Ex-Officio Joint Secretary, Department Raigarh, Government of Chhattisgarh, of Revenue, Chhattisgarh. 3. General Manager, District Trade and Industries Centre, Raigarh, Chhattisgarh. 4. Sub-Divisional Officer-cum-Land Acquisition Officer, Raigarh, Chhattisgarh. 5. Gram Panchayat, Badebhandar, Tahsil Pussaur, District Raigarh, Chhattisgarh. 6. Adani Power Limited, Through its Authorised Signatory/ Representative, having Office at Tilda-Simga Road, Rairkheda, Tilda, District Raipur, having registered office at Adani Corporate House, Shantigram, Near Vishno Devi Circle, S.G. Highway, Khodiyar, Ahmadabad, Gujarat 382421, India. Page 2 of 24 (WPC No. 5918 of 2010) 7. Chhattisgarh State Industrial Development Corporation, Through its Managing Director, Pandari, Raipur, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondents For Petitioner For Respondents No.1 to 4/State: Mr. Sharad Mishra, Panel Lawyer For Respondent No.6 : Mr. Alok Bakshi, Advocate. : Mr. Kishore Bhaduri, Senior Advocate For Respondent No.7 : Mr. Kashif Shakeel, Advocate. with Mr. Pankaj Singh, Advocate. Single Bench:- Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal CAV Order 1. Two petitioners herein (petitioner No.2 died and her name has been deleted) have filed the instant writ petition calling in question legality, validity and correctness of notification dated 3-7-2010 (Annexure P-1) issued under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, ‘the Act of 1894’) and also notification dated 6-9-2010 issued under Section 6 of the Act of 1894 and eventually seeks to quash the order dated 26-8-2010 (Annexure P-6) passed by the Sub Divisional Officer-cum-Land Acquisition Officer, Raigarh, on the ground that while making acquisition Section 5A(2) of the Act of 1894 has not been followed in its letter and spirit and the land has not been acquired for public purpose. 2. The aforesaid challenge has been made on the following factual backdrop:- Page 3 of 24 (WPC No. 5918 of 2010) 3. It is the case of the petitioner that the lands bearing Khasra Nos.230/1, 372 & 373/2B and Khasra Nos.375 & 376, total area admeasuring 1.417 hectare, was sought to be acquired for private purpose. It is the further case of the petitioner that the land is sought to be acquired for a private company/ respondent No.6 which cannot be said to be the public purpose. It is also the case of the petitioner that respondent No.2 herein issued notification under Section 4 of the Act of 1894 for acquisition of land for industrial purpose vide Annexure P-1 and immediately after issuance of the said notification, objection under Section 5A(2) of the Act of 1894 was filed by the petitioner, however, the Land Acquisition Officer whose power has been conferred to the Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue) heard the matter, but did not make any recommendation to the appropriate Government under Section 5A(2) and himself has disposed of the objection in terms of reply dated 13-8-2010 filed by the General Manager, District Trade and Industries Centre, Raigarh, as such, neither recommendation was made under Section 5A(2) to the appropriate Government nor decision has been taken by the appropriate Government, therefore, the entire proceeding and subsequent notice is vitiated. It is also the case of the petitioner that the same company (respondent No.6) for which the lands have been acquired has purchased lands from the Page 4 of 24 (WPC No. 5918 of 2010) private owners on higher rates in the close vicinity of the lands of the petitioners and subsequently, lands of the petitioners are sought to be taken for the alleged public purpose. Furthermore, the resolution of the Gram Panchayat regarding the periphery within which the lands are to be acquired have been ignored and violated while taking lands of the petitioner for acquisition. It is also the case of the petitioner that the lands of the petitioner are agricultural lands as per the revenue records in khasra entries having crop of paddy over it, however, at the time of preparing documents for acquisition, the same has been considered and mentioned to be land of type TIKARA, which is devaluating the lands of the petitioner. In
Legal Reasoning
the aforesaid background, the writ petition has been filed seeking quashment of notifications under Sections 4(1) & 6 of the Act of 1894 and also seeking quashment of order dated 26- 8-2010 rejecting the objection. 4. Return has been filed by respondents No.1 to 4/State stating inter alia that the acquisition process was carried out strictly in accordance with law and as per the provisions contained in the Act of 1894. It is further submitted that the Sub- Divisional Officer (Revenue) acting as the Land Acquisition Officer duly considered the objections raised by the petitioner under Section 5A of the Act of 1894 and after providing Page 5 of 24 (WPC No. 5918 of 2010) opportunity of hearing and considering all relevant issues, passed reasoned order dated 26-8-2010 addressing concerns related to compensation, rehabilitation and employment, and thus all procedural safeguards mandated under the Act of 1894 have been complied with in fair and objective manner. The State has also filed documents along with the return stating that power under Section 5A(2) of the Act of 1894 to hear objection has been conferred to the Sub-Divisional Officer (SDO) vide notification dated 6-3-1987 and that is the reason that the SDO has heard the objection in place of the Collector and furthermore, notification dated 3-9-2003 has been filed which states that power of the appropriate Government has been conferred to the Collector, therefore, in place of the appropriate Government, the Collector has taken decision on the alleged recommendation made by the SDO. 5. Respondent No.6 – Korba West Power Company Limited, Raigarh, now Adani Power Limited, has filed return stating inter alia that the land acquisition proceedings under Section 4(1) of the Act of 1894 for acquisition of the subject lands were initiated by the Office of the Collector, Raigarh on 16-7-2010 and notification under Section 6 of the Act of 1894 was issued on 3-9-2010. It has been further stated that the landowners, whose lands were proposed to be acquired, filed detailed Page 6 of 24 (WPC No. 5918 of 2010) objections before the SDO(R) on various dates and the General Manager, District Trade and Industries Centre, Raigarh, has submitted replies to the said objections and thereafter, the Land Acquisition Officer-cum-SDO(R) heard the objections and forwarded the same to the Collector for further proceedings under Section 6 of the Act of 1894 and thereafter, notification under Section 6 was published on 1-10-2010 and subsequently the award was passed and land was sought to be acquired for industrial purpose. It has also been stated that the State Government has acquired the subject lands for a public purpose and compensation was paid from public funds. Thereafter, the lands were agreed to be leased to the respondent Company for the purpose of setting up a coal based thermal power plant in accordance with the prevailing industrial policy. According to this policy, the Government acquired the land and transferred it to Chhattisgarh State Industrial Development Corporation (CSIDC), which, in turn, executed a lease deed in favour of the respondent Company and lease deed was executed on 14-3-2011 for approximately 91.305 hectares of land and as such, the acquisition is strictly in accordance with law. 6. Respondent No.7 CSIDC has also filed return supporting the acquisition made by the State Government for industrial Page 7 of 24 (WPC No. 5918 of 2010) purpose stating inter alia that acquisition has been made strictly in accordance with law and no interference is called for.
Legal Reasoning
7. Mr. Alok Bakshi, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, would submit that the lands in question are irrigated lands and the petitioner is willing to continue his livelihood by irrigating the aforesaid lands. He would further submit that the petitioners’ objections were not considered in accordance with Section 5A(2) of the Act of 1894 and the Collector-cum- Land Acquisition Officer did not make any recommendation on their objections and straightway decided the objections himself and, therefore, the appropriate Government whose power has been delegated to the Collector did not have an opportunity to consider their objections and without there being any recommendation, proceeded to pass order and issuance of notification under Section 6(1) of the Act of 1894 which is illegal and bad in law. As such, the order has been passed in violation of Section 5A(2) of the Act of 1894. He would rely upon the decisions of the Supreme Court in the matters of Union of India and others v. Shiv Raj and others1 (relevant paragraphs 15 to 17), Kedar Nath Yadav v. State of West Bengal and others2 (relevant paragraphs 94 to 99), Haryana 1 2