1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Department Of Public Works, Mahanadi Bhawan Atal v. 1 - Parikshit
Case Details
1 2025:CGHC:37986-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Judgment reserved on : 02-05-2025 Judgment delivered on : 01-08-2025 FAM No. 73 of 2019 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Department Of Public Works, Mahanadi Bhawan Atal Nagar, Mantralaya, Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh. (Appellant No. 1 Herein Is Necessary To Implead Through Secretary Of The Concerned Department). 2 - The Land Acquisition Officer Durg, District Durg Chhattisgarh., 3 - The Executive Engineer Public Works Department, Durg, Tahsil And District Durg Chhattisgarh ... Appellants versus 1 - Parikshit Singh Gupta S/o Shri Ajay Singh Gupta Aged About 35 Years 2 - Nishant Singh Gupta S/o Shri Ajay Singh Gupta, Both R/o Infront Of Nagar Nigam Office, Gaurav Path, Durg, Tehsil And District Durg Chhattisgarh. 3 - (Deleted ) Ajit Alias Vinod Singh Gupta (Dead ) Through LRs as Per Court Order Dt. 01-10-2019. 3(a) Smt. Neelima Gupta Wd/o Late Ajit Singh Gupta Aged About 71 Years 2 3(b) Prashant Singh Gupta S/o Late Ajit Singh Gupta Aged About 41 Years Both R/o House No. 4, Aapapura Ward, Kutchhari Road, Tahsil Marg, Police Station Durg, Tahsil And District - Durg Chhattisgarh. PIN No. 491001
Legal Reasoning
3(C) Dr. (Smt.) Sonali Tawar, D/o Late Ajit Singh Gupta Aged About 48 Years R/o House No. A/32, Cross Street-5, Smriti Nagar, Bhilai, District - Durg Chhattisgarh. PIN No. 490020 .. Respondents For Appellants : Mr. RS Marhas, Addl. Advocate General. For Respondents : Mr. Sunil Sahu, Advocate. Hon’ble Smt. Justice Rajani Dubey, Hon’ble Shri Justice Sachin Singh Rajput, JJ Per Rajani Dubey, J C A V Judgment Challenge in this appeal is to the legality and validity of the order dated 30.7.2018 passed by First Additional Judge to the Court of First Additional District Judge, Durg in MJC No.85/2014 whereby reference made by the Land Acquisition Officer/Sub Divisional Officer, Durg under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 has been partly allowed with a direction to the Land Acquisition Officer to recompute the compensation @ Rs.5,380/- per square meter as per guidelines of 2010-11 and make payment thereof to the respondents with interest @ 9% pa for first year from publication of notification dated 13.8.2010 and then @ 15% pa till the date of payment, within a period of three months from the date of order. 3 02. Facts of the case, in brief, necessary for adjudication of this appeal are that in lieu of acquisition of joint land of ownership of plaintiffs/respondents No. 1 & 2 bearing Khasra No.693, area 0.182 hectare and land of plaintiff/respondent No.3 bearing Khasra No.688/2, 3, 689 and 690, area 0.141, 0.081 and 0.077 hectare, total 0.299 hectare (0.74 acre), the Land Acquisition Officer passed an award on 29.6.2011 in Land Acquisition Case No.02/A-82/08-09 whereby respondents No. 1 & 2 were awarded compensation of Rs.1,09,66,592/- and respondent No.3 was awarded Rs.1,80,16,544/-. It is not in dispute that notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 was published on 13.8.2010 and treating the said acquired land as non-irrigated land, the compensation was assessed @ Rs.4,308/- per square meter as per guidelines of the Collector for the year 2009-10 and on this interest @ 12% pa from the date of publication of notification to the date of passing of award and 30% solatium was fixed. The payment of awarded amount was made to respondents No. 1 & 2 on 12.5.2012 and to respondent No.3 Ajit Singh (deceased) on 11.5.2012. 03. The respondents/plaintiffs stated that the lands acquired are of their ownership and title and as on some part of their lands road was constructed by the Public Works Department after illegal encroachment, they moved an application before the Tehsildar who got demarcation of their land conducted on 3.5.2006 and then they came 4 to know about actual area encroached upon by PWD. In its reply in the said revenue case, the SDO of PWD admitted construction of road on their land 25 years ago and acquisition of the land. The respondents stated that after receipt of notice in the land acquisition proceedings they appeared before the Land Acquisition Officer on 20.1.2011 and submitted their written claim on 31.1.2011. The Land Acquisition Officer did not afford them opportunity of adducing evidence and passed the final award on 29.6.2011. Since income tax was illegally deducted on the total compensation amount, the Income Tax Department refunded the said deducted amount. Therefore, they are entitled for interest @ 9% for the first year on the amount illegally deducted towards income tax and thereafter @ 15% till the date of payment i.e. 11.5.2012. They averred that the Land Acquisition Officer has not followed the mandatory provisions of Section 23 of the Land Acquisition Act. The compensation amount was to be assessed as per guidelines of 2010- 11 @ Rs.5,380/- per sqm whereas it is done as per guidelines of 2009- 10 @ Rs.4,308/- per sqm and on the compensation amount, the respondents are entitled for interest @ 9% for first year from publication of notification dated 13.8.2010 and then @ 15% till the date of payment. This apart, since PWD had illegal possession of their land about 30 years prior to acquisition, they are entitled to 15% of the market value of the land from the date of possession as compensation with interest @ 6%. 5 04. The appellants in their written statement averred that land of the respondents was duly acquired after affording them opportunity of submission of objection and compensation has been awarded to them from the date of acquisition as per prevalent rate. They are not entitled for any additional compensation. In fact, no encroachment was done by the appellants. Therefore, the reference is liable to be rejected. 05. Learned Reference Court framed as many as 11 issues and after appreciation of the evidence on record, passed the impugned order. Hence this appeal by the appellants/State. 06. Learned counsel for the appellants would contend that the impugned order has been passed by overlooking the actual facts and circumstances of the case without application of judicious mind and
Decision
therefore, it is liable to be set aside. The impugned order is patently illegal and passed in absolute contravention of the settled legal position. Learned Reference Court has not appreciated the evidence and material on record in its proper perspective and also not considered the written statements of the appellants and thus erroneously awarded compensation to the respondents/plaintiffs at the rate fixed for the residential lands @ Rs.5380/- per sqm despite the fact that it was a non-irrigated land. Therefore, the impugned order is liable to be set aside. Learned Reference Court has failed to properly appreciate the fact that the disputed property is agricultural land and not the residential land because of which compensation cannot be 6 awarded to the plaintiffs at the rate fixed for residential land. Learned counsel for the appellants further contended that the learned Court erroneously calculated the market value of the land in the land acquisition proceedings and failed to see that under the Land Acquisition Act, the lands are not acquired for the purpose of selling and thus misinterpreted the provisions under Land Acquisition Act. 07. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents No. 1 & 2 submits that the learned Reference Court after due appreciation of oral and documentary evidence has rightly assessed compensation to the respondents in lieu of acquisition of their land as per the market value and prevalent guidelines. As such, there being no illegality or infirmity in the impugned order, the present appeal is liable to be dismissed. 08. Learned counsel for the respondents No. 1 & 2 submits that the respondents No.1 & 2 received notice for appearance before this Court on 22.4.2019 and then filed cross appeal on 17.6.2019 seeking interest u/s 34 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 from the date of award to the date of payment as also rental interest due to illegal possession of their land prior to award. He would submit that admittedly in the year 1986 road was constructed by PWD, Durg on the applicants’ land situated at Kasaridih, Durg and demarcation of the suit land by Tehsildar, Durg was done in the year 2006. As per demarcation report dated 3.5.2006 7 encroachment was shown on the applicants’ land. Thereafter, on 2.9.2006 an eviction suit bearing No.10A-70/2006-07 was filed before the Court of Tehsildar, Durg u/s 250 of Land Revenue Code against PWD, Durg, in which on 9.11.2006 SDO, PWD, Durg filed reply that they will acquire the land in question and pay compensation accordingly. He submitted that on 4.6.2010 the land acquisition case/application was filed and notification u/s 4(1) of the Act was published on 13.8.2010 and the award was passed on 29.6.2011 by SDOR/Land Acquisition Officer, Durg awarding compensation to the applicants @ Rs.4308/- per sqm of land as per guideline for the financial year 2009-10 and therefore, a reference application u/s 18 of the Act was moved on 9.8.2011 and the applicants were paid awarded amount on 12.5.2012 after deducting TDS. On 27.6.2014 the reference application was forwarded to the Court of District Judge and on 30.7.2018 the impugned order was passed by the Reference Court in favour of the applicants/land owners for awarding them compensation as per the rate applicable in the year of publication of notification u/s 4(1) of the Act. Thereafter, the appellants/State filed the instant appeal in March, 2019 along with an application for condonation of delay. 09. Learned counsel for the respondents No.1 & 2/applicants submitted that the learned Reference Court while partly allowing the reference directed the Land Acquisition Officer to recompute the compensation @ Rs.5,380/- per square meter as per guidelines of 8 2010-11 and make payment thereof to the respondents with interest @ 9% pa for first year from publication of notification dated 13.8.2010 and then @ 15% pa till the date of payment, within a period of three months from the date of order. Hence this cross appeal by respondents No. 1 & 2 for interest u/s 34 of the Act from the date of award to the date of payment as also rental interest due to illegal possession prior to award. Reliance has been placed on the judgment dated 7.7.2011 of this Court in WPC No.2630/2009 in the matter of Shri Swaroop Chand Jain and another Vs. State of CG and others and the order dated 21.7.2017 in FAM No.121/2008 in the case of State of CG and another Vs. Abdul Salam Khan and others. 10. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the appellants/State vehemently opposes the above contention of respondents No. 1 & 2. He also placed reliance on the judgment dated 7.7.2011 of this Court in WPC No.2630/2009 in the matter of Shri Swaroop Chand Jain and another Vs. State of CG and others. 11. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 12. It is not disputed in this case that the appellants/State of CG acquired the land of respondents/plaintiffs No.1 to 3 situated at Village- Kasaridih, Tahsil and Distt. Durg and as per award dated 29.6.2011, 9 respondents No. 1 & 2 were awarded compensation of Rs.1,09,66,592/- and respondent No.3 Ajit @ Vinod Singh Gupta (deceased) was awarded compensation of Rs.1,80,16,544/-. It is also not in dispute that Notification was published as per Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 on 13.8.2010 and the said compensation was disbursed to respondents No. 1 & 2 on 12.5.2012 and to respondent No.3 on 11.5.2012. 13. Learned Reference Court framed as many as 11 issues for deciding the reference. The important issues being Issue Nos. 1, 2, 5 & 6 are reproduced hereunder: क० वा(cid:4)द्ቚ् नि(cid:9)ष्क्ቧ(cid:12) 1. भू(cid:2)- अ्ቌ(cid:5)न अधि(cid:8). की(cid:10) (cid:8)(cid:11)रा(cid:11)-4 की(cid:13) अ(cid:14)त्ቇ(cid:5)त ्ቚकी(cid:11)शि(cid:19)त अधि(cid:8)सू(cid:2)चन(cid:11) की(cid:10) ्ቚकी(cid:11)(cid:19)न अधि(cid:8)सू(cid:2)चन(cid:11) दि(cid:23)न(cid:11)(cid:14)की की(cid:24) अधि(cid:8)्ቇहि(cid:27)त भू(cid:2)धि(cid:28) की(cid:11) बा(cid:11)्ቌ(cid:11)रा हितशिथा की(cid:24) अቌኌ्ቌ#त की(cid:10) ्ቇय$ (cid:28)(cid:2)ल्य क्य(cid:11) था(cid:11)? भू(cid:2)धि(cid:28)य% की(cid:11) (cid:28)(cid:2)ल्य रु~5,380 /- ्ቚहितव्ቇ(cid:5) (cid:28)$टरा था(cid:11)" 2. 5. 6. क्य(cid:11) आव(cid:13). ्ቇण अधि(cid:8)्ቇहि(cid:27)त भू(cid:2)धि(cid:28) की(cid:13) बा(cid:11)्ቌ(cid:11)रा (cid:28)(cid:2)ल्य की(cid:13) आव(cid:13). ्ቇण रु 5.380/-्ቚहितव्ቇ(cid:5) आ(cid:8)(cid:11)रा परा (cid:28),आव्ቌ(cid:11) ्ቚ(cid:11)प्त कीरान(cid:13) की(cid:13) अधि(cid:8)की(cid:11)रा$ (cid:27).? (cid:28)$टरा की(cid:10) (cid:23)रा सू(cid:13) (cid:28),आव्ቌ(cid:11) ्ቚ(cid:11)प्त कीरान(cid:13) की(cid:13) अधि(cid:8)की(cid:11)रा$ (cid:27). क्य(cid:11) अቌኌ्ቌ#त भू(cid:2)धि(cid:28) की(cid:13) अहितरिराक्त भू(cid:2)धि(cid:28) परा अन(cid:11). ्ቇण ्ቚ(cid:28)(cid:11)णिणत न(cid:27)4" " अधि(cid:8)सू(cid:2)चन(cid:11) दि(cid:23)न(cid:11)(cid:14)की की(cid:13) 30 व्ቧ(cid:5) प(cid:2)व(cid:5) व्ቧ(cid:5)-81 सू(cid:13) सूडकी बान(cid:11)कीरा अव.(cid:8) कीब््ቌ(cid:11) हिकीय(cid:11) ्ቇय(cid:11) (cid:27).? यदि(cid:23) (cid:27)(cid:11)5 त(cid:24) क्य(cid:11) आव(cid:13). ्ቇण व्ቧ(cid:5)-81 सू(cid:13) अधि(cid:8)सू(cid:2)चन(cid:11) "न(cid:27)4" दि(cid:23)न(cid:11)(cid:14)की तकी हिन(cid:8)(cid:11)(cid:5)रिरात बा(cid:11)्ቌ(cid:11)रा (cid:28)(cid:2)ल्य की(cid:10) 15% रा(cid:11)शि(cid:19) 10 ्ቚहितकीरा की(cid:13) रूप (cid:28)7 6% ब्य(cid:11)्ቌ सूहि(cid:27)त ्ቚ(cid:11)प्त कीरान(cid:13) की(cid:13) अधि(cid:8)की(cid:11)रा$ (cid:27).? 14. It is not disputed in this case that the Notification was published on 13.8.2010. The witness of non-applicant/appellant (NAW-1 Kailash Prasad Verma) admitted the fact that the Notification was published on 13.8.2010 and he also admitted that guidelines were prepared as per financial year. Thus the learned Reference Court rightly found that as the Notification was published on 13.8.2010, the guidelines for deciding the award would be the guidelines applicable to the period from 1.4.2010 to 31.3.2011. It is also an admitted fact that on 13.8.2010 as per guidelines, the rate of land was Rs.5,380/- per sqm. Non-applicant Witness No.1 Kailash Prasad Verma, Sub Divisional Officer, admitted in para 19 that रा(cid:11)्ቌस्व व्ቧ(cid:5) 1 अक्ट(cid:2)बारा सू(cid:13) 30 शिसूतम्बाराकी(cid:11) (cid:27)(cid:24)त(cid:11) (cid:27).औरा उसू$की(cid:13) अन,सू(cid:11)रा ्ቇणन(cid:11)की(cid:10)्ቌ(cid:11)त$ (cid:27).।य(cid:27)की(cid:27)न(cid:11) सू(cid:27)$ (cid:27). हिकी ्ቇ(cid:11)इडला(cid:11)ईनहिवቈኍ$यव्ቧ(cid:5)की(cid:13) अन,सू(cid:11)रात.य(cid:11)राकी(cid:10)्ቌ(cid:11)त$(cid:27).।य(cid:27)की(cid:27)न(cid:11)सू(cid:27)$(cid:27).हिकीरा(cid:11)्ቌस्वव्ቧ(cid:5)की(cid:10) अधि(cid:8)सू(cid:2)चन(cid:11)ला(cid:13)कीरान(cid:27)4आय(cid:11)ूሺ5।(cid:28)Bन(cid:27)4बात(cid:11)सूकीत(cid:11)हिकीभू(cid:2)धि(cid:28)अ्ቌ(cid:5)नरा(cid:11)्ቌस्वव्ቧ(cid:5)की(cid:13) अन,सू(cid:11)रा हिकीय(cid:13)्ቌ(cid:11)न(cid:13)की(cid:10)अधि(cid:8)सू(cid:2)चन(cid:11)य(cid:11)्ቚ(cid:11)व(cid:8)(cid:11)न(cid:27).य(cid:11)न(cid:27)4।स्वतCकी(cid:27)(cid:11)रा(cid:11)्ቌस्व्ቚकीराणरा(cid:11)्ቌस्वव्ቧ(cid:5)की(cid:13) हि(cid:27)सू(cid:11)बासू(cid:13)चलात(cid:13)(cid:27).। In para 22 he admits that भू(cid:2)अ्ቌ(cid:5)नकी(cid:13) अ(cid:14)त्ቇ(cid:5)त(cid:28),आव्ቌ(cid:11)रा(cid:11)शि(cid:19) की(cid:11)हिन(cid:8)(cid:11)(cid:5)राण्ቇ(cid:11)इडला(cid:11)ईनकी(cid:13) (cid:28)(cid:2)ल्यएव(cid:14)हिबाकी(cid:10)छा(cid:11)टकी(cid:13) (cid:28)(cid:2)ल्य, (cid:23)(cid:24)न(cid:24)(cid:28)7सू(cid:13)्ቌ(cid:24)अधि(cid:8)की(cid:27)(cid:24)उसूकी(cid:13) अन,सू(cid:11)राहिकीय(cid:11)्ቌ(cid:11)त(cid:11)(cid:27).। 15. This Court in the matter of Shri Swaroop Chand Jain (supra) observed in paras 16 & 17 of its order as under: 11 “16. In view of foregoing, it is ordered that the State/respondents shall calculate the interest, as aforestated, from the date of publication of notification under Section 4 (1) of the Act, 1894, within a period of four weeks from the date of this order. 17. Having regard to the facts situation of the case, wherein the possession was taken over long back, though, the dispute was not raised by the petitioners earlier, the petitioners were deprived of their constitutional right, as enshrined under Article 300A of the Constitution of India, thus, the petitioners are entitled to cost, as the respondent authorities have illegally & unauthorisedly taken over the possession of the land in dispute. 16. This Court in the matter of Abdul Salam Khan (supra) held in para 13 of the order as under: “13. The market value guidelines (Ex.P/6 & Ex.P/8) nowhere indicates that for applying the rate on square feet basis the land should necessarily be diverted land. Therefore, if the land is capable of being used for residential purpose or commercial purpose, the rate would be applicable on square feet basis in view of the market value guidelines. The reference Court has not committed any illegality in awarding compensation on the said rates.” 17. In light of above, in the present case also learned Reference Court rightly appreciated the oral and documentary evidence adduced by both the parties and decided the issues in favour of the respondents. The learned Reference Court was justified in holding that compensation in lieu of acquisition of land of the respondents is to be 12 calculated @ Rs.5,380/- per sqm. This assessment is in accordance with the guidelines of the Hon’ble Apex Court and the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act. As such, we find no illegality or irregularity in the impugned order of the learned Reference Court for interference by this Court. Therefore, the present appeal being devoid of any substance is liable to be dismissed and it is dismissed as such. 18. As regards cross appeal filed by respondents No. 1 & 2, Section 34 of the Act reads under: “34. Payment of interest. – When the amount of such compensation is not paid or deposited on or before taking possession of the land, the Collector shall pay the amount awarded with interest thereon at the rate of nine per centum per annum from the time of so taking possession until it shall have been so paid or deposited. [Provided that if such compensation or any part thereof is not paid or deposited within a period of one year from the date on which possession is taken, interest at the rate of fifteen per centum per annum shall be payable from the date of expiry of the said period of one year on the amount of compensation or part thereof which has not been paid or deposited before the date of such expiry.] 19. From the pleadings of the parties and the evidence adduced by them it is clear that the respondents were dispossessed from their land in the year 1986 but demarcation of the suit land by the Tahsildar was done on 3.5.2006 in which encroachment was shown on the land of the 13 respondents No. 1 & 2 and then they filed an eviction suit in the year 2006. So, in the given facts and circumstances of the case, as the appellant authorities had illegally and unauthorizedly taken over possession of land of respondents No. 1 & 2, they are entitled for interest on compensation from the date of filing of eviction suit i.e. 2.9.2006 till the date of payment. 20. In the result, the appeal filed by the appellants/State being devoid of any substance is hereby dismissed. However, the cross appeal preferred by respondents No. 1 & 2 is allowed to the extent that they are entiled for interest on the compensation from the date of filing of the eviction suit i.e. 2.9.2006 at the rate of 9% pa for the first year and thereafter @ 15% pa till the date of actual payment. Let a decree be drawn up accordingly. Sd (Rajani Dubey) Judge Sd/ (Sachin Singh Rajput) Judge MOHD AKHTAR KHAN Digitally signed by MOHD AKHTAR KHAN Date: 2025.08.01 16:46:52 +0530 Khan