Afr High Court
Case Details
1 2025:CGHC:8980 AFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 1999 of 2018 1 - Kunjbhuwan Sahu S/o Bisariram Sahu Aged About 65 Years R/o Village Janjgiri, Tahsil Dhamdha District Durg Chhattisgarh versus --- Petitioner 1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary Revenue And Disaster Management Department Mahanadi Bhawan New Raipur Thana And District Raipur Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - The Commissioner Durg Com Missionary Durg District Durg Chhattisgarh., District : Durg, Chhattisgarh 3 - The Collector Durg , Collectorate Durg Tahsil Durg District Durg Chhattisgarh. 4 - The Sub Divisional Officer Patan Cum Land Acquisition Officer , Tahsil And District Durg Chhattisgarh., District : Durg, Chhattisgarh 5 - The Subdivisional Officer Durg , Thahsil And District Durg Chhattisgarh., District : Durg, Chhattisgarh 6 - Power Grid Corporation Of India Limited , Through The Senior Manager Village Janjgir Thana Bhilai And Tahsil Dhamdha District Durg Chhattisgarh., District : Durg, Chhattisgarh --- Respondents WPC No. 1226 of 2018 1 - Shatruhan S/o Late Dhannu Patwa Aged About 68 Years R/o Village Janjgiri, Tahsil Dhamdha, District Durg Chhattisgarh., District : Durg, Chhattisgarh Versus ---Petitioner 2 1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Revenue And Disaster Management Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, New Raipur, Thana And District Raipur Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - The Commissioner Durg, Commissionary Durg District Durg Chhattisgarh., District : Durg, Chhattisgarh 3 - The Collector Durg, Collectorate Durg Tahsil Durg, District Durg (Chhattisgarh), District : Durg, Chhattisgarh 4 - The Sub Divisional Officer Patan Cum Land Acquisition Officer, Tahsil And District Durg Chhattisgarh., District : Durg, Chhattisgarh 5 - The Sub Divisional Officer Durg, Tahsil And District Durg Chhattisgarh., District : Durg, Chhattisgarh 6 - Power Grid Corporation Of India Limited Through The Senior Manager, Village Janjgir, Thana Bhilai And Tahsil Dhamdha District Durg Chhattisgarh., District : Durg, Chhattisgarh --- Respondents WPC No. 2006 of 2018 1 - Ram Kumar Sahu S/o Late Manbodh Sahu, Aged About 55 Years R/o Village Janjgiri, Tahsil Dhamdha, District Durg Chhattisgarh., District : Durg, Chhattisgarh Versus ---Petitioner 1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary Revenue And Disaster Management Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, New Raipur, Thana And District Raipur Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - The Commissioner Durg, Commissionary Durg District Durg Chhattisgarh., District : Durg, Chhattisgarh 3 - The Collector, Durg, Collectorate Durg Tahsil Durg, District Durg Chhattisgarh., District : Durg, Chhattisgarh 4 - The Sub Divisional Officer, Patan Cum Land Acquisition Officer, Tahsil And District Durg Chhattisgarh., District : Durg, Chhattisgarh 3 5 - The Sub Divisional Officer, Durg, Tahsil And District Durg Chhattisgarh., District : Durg, Chhattisgarh 6 - Power Grid Corporation Of India Limited, Through The Senior Manager, Village Janjgir, Thana Bhilai And Tahsil Dhamdha District Durg Chhattisgarh., District : Durg, Chhattisgarh --- Respondents WPC No. 1268 of 2018 1 - Keju Ram (Died) Through Lrs Birij Bai Sahu Wd/o Late Kejuram Aged About 73 Years R/o Village Dhamdha, (Now Bhilai-3), District Durg, C.G. (As Per Honble Court Order Dated 20-08-2024) 2 - Bhagwat Sahu S/o Late Kejuram Aged About 53 Years R/o Village Dhamdha, (Now Bhilai-3), District Durg, C.G. 3 - Ajit Ram Sahu S/o Late Kejuram Aged About 46 Years R/o Village Dhamdha, (Now Bhilai-3), District Durg, C.G. 4 - Daluram Sahu S/o Late Kejuram Aged About 44 Years R/o Village Dhamdha, (Now Bhilai-3), District Durg, C.G. 5 - Delu Ram Sahu S/o Late Kejuram Aged About 35 Years R/o Village Dhamdha, (Now Bhilai-3), District Durg, C.G. Versus ---Petitioners 1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Revenue And Disaster Management Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, New Raipur, Thana And District Raipur Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - The Commissioner Durg, Commissionary Durg, District Durg Chhattisgarh., District : Durg, Chhattisgarh 3 - The Collector, Durg, Collectorate Durg Tahsil Durg, District Durg Chhattisgarh., District : Durg, Chhattisgarh 4 - The Sub Divisional Officer, Patan Cum Land Acquisition Officer, Tahsil And District Durg Chhattisgarh., District : Durg, Chhattisgarh 4 5 - The Sub Divisional Officer, Durg, Tahsil And District Durg Chhattisgarh., District : Durg, Chhattisgarh 6 - Power Grid Corporation Of India Limited, Through The Senior Manager, Village Janjgir, Thana Bhilai And Tahsil Dhamdha District Durg Chhattisgarh., District : Durg, Chhattisgarh --- Respondents WPC No. 2157 of 2018 1 - Sewaram Sahu S/o S/o Late Lekhram Aged About 51 Years R/o Village Janjgir, Tahsil Dhamdha District Durg, Chhattisgarh., District : Durg, Chhattisgarh Versus ---Petitioner 1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Revenue, And Disaster Management Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, New Raipur, Thana And District Raipur, Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - The Commissioner, Durg, Commissionary, Durg District Durg, Chhattisgarh., District : Durg, Chhattisgarh 3 - The Collector, Durg, Collectorate Durg, Tahsil Durg, District Durg, Chhattisgarh., District : Durg, Chhattisgarh 4 - The Sub Divisional Officer, Patan Cum Land Acquisition Officer, Tahsil And District Durg, Chhattisgarh., District : Durg, Chhattisgarh 5 - The Sub Divisional Officer, Durg, Tahsil And District Durg, Chhattisgarh., District : Durg, Chhattisgarh 6 - Power Grid Corporation Of India Limited, Through The Senior Manager, Village Janjgir, Thana Bhilai, And Tahsil Dhamdha, District Durg, Chhattisgarh., District : Durg, Chhattisgarh --- Respondents WPC No. 1225 of 2018 1 - Medhu Ram S/o Late Goverdhan Sahu Aged About 72 Years R/o Village Janjgiri, Tahsil Dhamdha District Durg Chhattisgarh., District : Durg, Chhattisgarh Versus ---Petitioner 5 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Revenue And Disaster Management Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, New Raipur, Thana And District Raipur Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - The Commissioner, Durg, Commissionary Durg, District Durg Chhattisgarh., District : Durg, Chhattisgarh 3 - The Collector Durg, Collectorate Durg, Tahsil Durg, District Durg Chhattisgarh., District : Durg, Chhattisgarh 4 - The Sub Divisional Officer, Patan Cum Land Acquisition Officer, Tahsil And District Durg Chhattisgarh., District : Durg, Chhattisgarh 5 - The Subdivisional Officer, Durg, Tahsil And District Durg Chhattisgarh., District : Durg, Chhattisgarh 6 - Power Grid Corporation Of India Limited Through The Senior Manager, Village Janjgir, Thana Bhilai And Tahsil Dhamdha District Durg Chhattisgarh., District : Durg, Chhattisgarh --- Respondents WPC No. 1228 of 2018 1 - Sundar Lal Sahu S/o Late Jugalu Ram Sahu, Aged About 65 Years R/o Village Janjgiri,tahsil Dhamdha, District Durg Chhattisgarh., District : Durg, Chhattisgarh Versus ---Petitioner 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Revenue And Disaster Management
Legal Reasoning
Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, New Raipur, Thana And Disrict Raipur Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - The Commissioner Durg, Commissionary Durg District Durg Chhattisgarh., District : Durg, Chhattisgarh 3 - The Collector Durg, Collectorate Durg Tahsil Durg, District Durg Chhattisgarh., District : Durg, Chhattisgarh 4 - The Sub Divisional Officer Patan Cum Land Acquisition Officer, Tahsil And District Durg Chhattisgarh., District : Durg, Chhattisgarh 6 5 - The Sub Divisional Officer Durg, Tahsil And Disrict Durg Chhattisgarh., District : Durg, Chhattisgarh 6 - Power Grid Corporation Of India Limited Through The Senior Manager, Village Janjgir, Thana Bhilai And Tahsil Dhamdha District Durg Chhattisgarh., District : Durg, Chhattisgarh --- Respondents WPC No. 1235 of 2018 1 - Moju Ram S/o Late Jivan Lal Sahu, Aged About 47 Years R/o Village Janjgiri, Tahsil Dhamdha, District Durg Chhattisgarh., District : Durg, Chhattisgarh Versus ---Petitioner 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Revenue And Disaster Management Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, New Raipur, Thana And District Raipur Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - The Commissioner Durg, Commissionary Durg District Durg Chhattisgarh., District : Durg, Chhattisgarh 3 - The Collector Durg, Collectorate Durg Tahsil Durg, District Durg Chhattisgarh., District : Durg, Chhattisgarh 4 - The Sub Divisional Officer Patan Cum Land Acquisition Officer, Tahsil And District Durg Chhattisgarh., District : Durg, Chhattisgarh 5 - The Sub Divisional Officer Durg, Tahsil And District Durg Chhattisgarh., District : Durg, Chhattisgarh 6 - Power Grid Corporation Of India Limited Through The Senior Manager, Village Janjgir, Thana Bhilai And Tahsil Dhamdha District Durg Chhattisgarh., District : Durg, Chhattisgarh --- Respondents WPC No. 1234 of 2018 1 - Komal Ram S/o Asaram Sahu, Aged About 48 Years R/o Village Janjgiri, Tahsil Dhamdha District Durg Chhattisgarh., District : Durg, Chhattisgarh Versus ---Petitioner 7 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Revenue And Disaster Management Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, New Raipur, Thana And District Raipur Chhattigarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - The Commissioner Durg, Commissionary Durg, District Durg Chhattisgarh., District : Durg, Chhattisgarh 3 - The Collector, Durg, Collectorate Durg Tahsil Durg, District Durg Chhattisgarh., District : Durg, Chhattisgarh 4 - The Sub Divisional Officer, Patan Cum Land Acquisition Officer, Tahsil And District Durg Chhattisgarh., District : Durg, Chhattisgarh 5 - The Sub Divisional Officer, Durg, Tahsil And District Durg Chhattisgarh., District : Durg, Chhattisgarh 6 - Power Grid Corporation Of India Limited, Through The Senior Manager, Village Janjgir, Thana Bhilai, And Tahsil Dhamdha District Durg Chhattisgarh., District : Durg, Chhattisgarh --- Respondents WPC No. 1229 of 2018 1 - Ferharam S/o Late Bhagoli Ram Aged About 47 Years R/o Village Janjgiri, Tahsil Dhamdha District Durg Chhattisgarh., District : Durg, Chhattisgarh Versus ---Petitioner 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Revenue And Disaster Management Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, New Raipur, Thana And District Raipur Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - The Commissioner Durg, Commissionary Durg, District Durg Chhattisgarh., District : Durg, Chhattisgarh 3 - The Collector, Durg, Collectorate Durg Tahsil Durg, District Durg Chhattisgarh., District : Durg, Chhattisgarh 4 - The Sub Divisional Officer Patan Cum Land Acquisition Officer, Tahsil And District Durg Chhattisgarh., District : Durg, Chhattisgarh 8 5 - The Sub Divisional Officer, Durg, Tahsil And District Durg Chhattisgarh., District : Durg, Chhattisgarh 6 - Power Grid Corporation Of India Limited, Through The Senior Manager, Village Janjgir, Thana Bhilai And Tahsil Dhamdha District Durg Chhattisgarh., District : Durg, Chhattisgarh --- Respondents WPC No. 1236 of 2018 1 - Ismile Baeg S/o Late Insan Baeg Aged About 85 Years R/o Village Janjgiri, Tahsil Dhamdha District Durg Chhattisgarh Presently R/o Ward No. 1 Murmunda Mode Vijay Talla Tahsil And District Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh., District : Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh Versus ---Petitioner 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary Revenue And Disaster Management Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, New Raipur, Thana And District Raipur Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - The Commissioner, Durg, Commissionary Durg District Durg Chhattisgarh., District : Durg, Chhattisgarh 3 - The Collector, Durg, Collectorate Durg Tahsil Durg, District Durg Chhattisgarh., District : Durg, Chhattisgarh 4 - The Sub Divisional Officer, Patan Cum Land Acquisition Officer, Tahsil And District Durg Chhattisgarh., District : Durg, Chhattisgarh 5 - The Sub Divisional Officer, Durg, Tahsil And District Durg Chhattisgarh., District : Durg, Chhattisgarh 6 - Power Grid Corporation Of India Limited, Through The Senior Manager, Village Janjgir, Thana Bhilai And Tahsil Dhamdha District Durg Chhattisgarh., District : Durg, Chhattisgarh --- Respondents WPC No. 1242 of 2018 1 - Shiv Prasad Sahu S/o Late Jeevdhan Aged About 61 Years R/o Village Janjgiri, Tahsil Dhamdha District Durg Chhattisgarh., District : Durg, Chhattisgarh ---Petitioner 9 Versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Revenue And Disaster Management Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, New Raipur, Thana And District Raipur Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - The Commissioner Durg, Commissionary Durg District Durg Chhattisgarh., District : Durg, Chhattisgarh 3 - The Collector, Durg, Collectorate Durg Tahsil Durg, District Durg Chhattisgarh., District : Durg, Chhattisgarh 4 - The Sub Divisional Officer, Patan Cum Land Acquisition Officer, Tahsil And District Durg Chhattisgarh., District : Durg, Chhattisgarh 5 - The Sub Divisional Officer Durg, Tahsil And District Durg Chhattisgarh., District : Durg, Chhattisgarh 6 - Power Grid Corporation Of Indian Limited, Through The Senior Manager, Village Janjgir, Thana Bhilai And Tahsil Dhamdha District Durg Chhattisgarh., District : Durg, Chhattisgarh --- Respondents WPC No. 1922 of 2018 1 - Rohit Kumar Patwa S/o Khamhan Lal Patwa Aged About 42 Years R/o Village Janjgiri, Tahsil Dhamdha, District Durg Chhattisgarh., District : Durg, Chhattisgarh Versus ---Petitioner 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Revenue And Disaster Management Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, New Raipur, Thana And District Raipur Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - The Commissioner Durg, Commissionary Durg, District Durg Chhattisgarh., District : Durg, Chhattisgarh 3 - The Collector Durg, Collectorate Durg Tahsil Durg, District Durg Chhattisgarh., District : Durg, Chhattisgarh 10 4 - The Sub Divisional Officer Patan Cum Land Acquisition Officer, Tahsil And District Durg Chhattisgarh., District : Durg, Chhattisgarh 5 - The Sub Divisional Officer Durg, Tahsil And District Durg Chhattisgarh., District : Durg, Chhattisgarh 6 - Power Grid Corporation Of India Limited Through The Senior Manager, Village Janjgir, Thana Bhilai And Tahsil Dhamdha District Durg Chhattisgarh., District : Durg, Chhattisgarh --- Respondents WPC No. 1932 of 2018 1 - Harinarayan Dewangan S/o S/o Jularam Dewangan Aged About 54 Years R/o Village Janjgiri Tahsil Dhamdha District- Durg, Chhattisgarh., District : Durg, Chhattisgarh Versus ---Petitioner 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Revenue And Disaster Management Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, New Raipur, Thana And District Raipur, Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - The Commissioner, Durg, Commissionery Durg, District- Durg, Chhattisgarh., District : Durg, Chhattisgarh 3 - The Collector, Durg, Collectorate Durg, Tahsil Durg, District Durg, Chhattisgarh., District : Durg, Chhattisgarh 4 - The Sub Divisional Officer, Patan Cum Land Acquisition Officer, Tahsil And District Durg, Chhattisgarh., District : Durg, Chhattisgarh 5 - The Sub Divisional Officer, Durg, Tahsil And District Durg, Chhattisgarh., District : Durg, Chhattisgarh 6 - Power Grid Corporation Of India Limited, Through The Senior Manager, Village Janjgir, Thana Bhilai And Tahsil Dhamdha District Durg, Chhattisgarh., District : Durg, Chhattisgarh --- Respondents WPC No. 1976 of 2018 11 1 - Johan Lal Sahu S/o S/o Govind Sahu Aged About 62 Years R/o Village Janjgiri Tahsil Dhamdha District Durg, Chhattisgarh., District : Durg, Chhattisgarh Versus ---Petitioner 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh, Through The Secretary, Revenue And Disaster Management Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, New Raipur, Thana And District Raipur, Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - The Commissioner, Durg, Commissionary Durg, District Durg, Chhattisgarh., District : Durg, Chhattisgarh 3 - The Collector Durg, Collectorate Durg Tahsil Durg, District Durg, Chhattisgarh., District : Durg, Chhattisgarh 4 - The Sub Divisional Officer, Patan Cum Land Acquisition Officer, Tahsil And District Durg, Chhattisgarh., District : Durg, Chhattisgarh 5 - The Sub Divisional Officer, Durg, Tahsil And District Durg, Chhattisgarh., District : Durg, Chhattisgarh 6 - Power Grid Corporation Of India Limited, Through The Senior Manager, Village Janjgir, Thana Bhilai And Tahsil Dhamdha, District Durg, Chhattisgarh., District : Durg, Chhattisgarh --- Respondents WPC No. 1981 of 2018 1 - Paltan Ram Sahu S/o Sukh Lal Sahu Aged About 68 Years R/o Village Janjgiri, Tahsil Dhamdha District Durg Chhattisgarh., District : Durg, Chhattisgarh ---Petitioner Versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Revenue And Disaster Management Department Mahanadi Bhawan , New Raipur Thana And District Raipur Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - The Commissioner Durg Com Missionary Durg District Durg Chhattisgarh., District : Durg, Chhattisgarh 12 3 - The Collector Durg, Collectorate Durg Tahsil Durg District Durg Chhattisgarh., District : Durg, Chhattisgarh 4 - The Sub Divisional Officer Patan Cum Land Acquisition , Officer, Tahsil And District Durg Chhattisgarh., District : Durg, Chhattisgarh 5 - The Subdivisional Officer Durg Tahsil And District Durg Chhattisgarh., District : Durg, Chhattisgarh 6 - Power Grid Corporation Lof India Limited Through The Senior Manager, Village Janjgir , Thana Bhilai And Tahsil Dhamdha District Durg Chhattisgarh. --- Respondents WPC No. 1982 of 2018 1 - Roopram Sahu S/o S/o Late Thanwar Aged About 65 Years R/o Village Janjgiri Tahsil Dhamdha District Durg, Chhattisgarh., District : Durg, Chhattisgarh Versus ---Petitioner 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Revenue And Disaster Management Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, New Raipur, Thana And District Raipur, Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - The Commissioner, Durg, Commissionary Durg, District Durg, Chhattisgarh., District : Durg, Chhattisgarh 3 - The Collector, Durg, Collectorate Durg Tahsil Durg, District Durg, Chhattisgarh., District : Durg, Chhattisgarh 4 - The Sub Divisional Officer, Patan Cum Land Acquisition Officer, Tahsil And District Durg, Chhattisgarh., District : Durg, Chhattisgarh 5 - The Sub Divisional Officer, Durg, Tahsil And District Durg, Chhattisgarh., District : Durg, Chhattisgarh 6 - Power Grid Corporation Of India Limited, Through The Senior Manager, Village Janjgir, Thana Bhilai And Tahsil Dhamdha, District Durg, Chhattisgarh., District : Durg, Chhattisgarh --- Respondents 13 WPC No. 1984 of 2018 1 - Ichha Ram S/o Baisakhu Aged About 62 Years R/o Village Janjgiri, Tahsil Dhamdha, District Durg Chhattisgarh., District : Durg, Chhattisgarh Versus ---Petitioner 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Revenue And Disaster Management Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, New Raipur, Thana And District Raipur Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - The Commissioner, Durg, Commissionary Durg, District Durg Chhattisgarh., District : Durg, Chhattisgarh 3 - The Collector, Durg, Collectorate Durg Tahsil Durg, District Durg Chhattisgarh., District : Durg, Chhattisgarh 4 - The Sub Divisional Officer, Patan Cum Land Acquisition Officer, Tahsil And District Durg Chhattisgarh., District : Durg, Chhattisgarh 5 - The Sub Divisional Officer, Durg, Tahsil And District Durg Chhattisgarh., District : Durg, Chhattisgarh 6 - Power Grid Corporation Of India Limited, Through The Senior Manager, Village Janjgir, Thana, Bhilai And Tahsil Dhamdha District Durg Chhattisgarh., District : Durg, Chhattisgarh --- Respondents WPC No. 1980 of 2018 1 - Tikaram Sahu S/o Late Ramadhar Sahu, Aged About 85 Years R/o Village Janjgiri, Tahsil Dhamdha District Durg Chhattisgarh., District : Durg, Chhattisgarh Versus ---Petitioner 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary Revenue And Disaster Management Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, New Raipur, Thana And District Raipur Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - The Commissioner, Durg, Commissionary Durg, District Durg Chhattisgarh., District : Durg, Chhattisgarh 14 3 - The Collector, Durg, Collectorate Durg Tahsil Durg, District Durg Chhattisgarh., District : Durg, Chhattisgarh 4 - The Sub Divisional Officer, Patan Cum Land Acquisition Officer, Tahsil And District Durg Chhattisgarh., District : Durg, Chhattisgarh 5 - The Sub Divisional Officer, Durg, Tahsil And District Durg Chhattisgarh., District : Durg, Chhattisgarh 6 - Power Grid Corporation Of India Limited, Through The Senior Manager, Village Janjgir, Thana Bhilai And Tahsil Dhamdha District Durg Chhattisgarh., District : Durg, Chhattisgarh --- Respondents WPC No. 2005 of 2018 1 - Bharosa Gond S/o Faguwa Ram Aged About 67 Years R/o Village- Janjgir, Tahsil Dhamdha District, Durg, Chhattisgarh., District : Durg, Chhattisgarh Versus ---Petitioner 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Revenue And Disaster Management Department, Mahanadi Bhwan, New Raipur, Thana And District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - The Commisioner Durg Commissionery Durg District- Durg, Chhattisgarh., District : Durg, Chhattisgarh 3 - The Collector Durg Collectorate Durg Tahsil Durg, District- Durg, Chhattisgarh., District : Durg, Chhattisgarh 4 - The Sub Divisional Officer Patan Cum Land Acquisition Officer, Tahsil And District- Durg, Chhattisgarh., District : Durg, Chhattisgarh 5 - The Subdivisional Officer Durg Tahsil And District- Durg, Chhattisgarh., District : Durg, Chhattisgarh 6 - Power Grid Corporation Of India Limited Through The Senior Manager, Village Janjgir, Thana Bhilai And Tahsil Dhamdha, District- Durg, Chhattisgarh., District : Durg, Chhattisgarh --- Respondents 15 WPC No. 2002 of 2018 1 - Bhagela Ram Sahu S/o Khorbahara Aged About 61 Years R/o Village Janjgiri, Tahsil Dhamdha District Durg Chhattisgarh., District : Durg, Chhattisgarh Versus ---Petitioner 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary Revenue And Disaster Management Department Mahanadi Bhawan New Raipur Thana And District Raipur Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - The Commissioner Durg, Com Missionary Durg District Durg Chhattisgarh., District : Durg, Chhattisgarh 3 - The Collector Durg , Collectorate Durg Tahsil Durg District Durg Chhattisgarh., District : Durg, Chhattisgarh 4 - The Sub Divisional Officer Patan Cum Land Acquisition Officer , Tahsil And District Durg Chhattisgarh., District : Durg, Chhattisgarh 5 - The Sub Divisional Officer Durg , Thahsil And District Durg Chhattisgarh., District : Durg, Chhattisgarh 6 - Power Grid Corporation Of India Limited , Through The Senior Manager Village Janjgir Thana Bhilai And Tahsil Dhamdha District Durg Chhattisgarh., District : Durg, Chhattisgarh --- Respondents WPC No. 2004 of 2018 1 - Kaluram Sahu S/o S/o Late Samriya Sahu Aged About 53 Years R/o Village Janjgiri, Tahsil Dhamdha District Durg, Chhattisgarh., District : Durg, Chhattisgarh Versus ---Petitioner 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Revenue And Disaster Management Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, New Raipur, Thana And District Raipur, Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - The Commissioner, Durg, Commissionary Durg, District Durg, Chhattisgarh., District : Durg, Chhattisgarh 16 3 - The Collector, Durg, Collectorate Durg Tahsil Durg, District Durg, Chhattisgarh., District : Durg, Chhattisgarh 4 - The Sub Divisional Officer, Patan Cum Land Acquisition Officer, Tahsil And District Durg, Chhattisgarh., District : Durg, Chhattisgarh 5 - The Sub Divisional Officer, Durg, Tahsil And District Durg, Chhattisgarh., District : Durg, Chhattisgarh 6 - Power Grid Corporation Of India Limited, Through The Senior Manager, Village Janjgir, Thana Bhilai And Tahsil Dhamdha, District Durg, Chhattisgarh., District : Durg, Chhattisgarh --- Respondents WPC No. 2003 of 2018 1 - Firanta Ram S/o Late Ram Dayal Sahu, Aged About 78 Years R/o Village Janjgiri, Tahsil Dhamdha District Durg Chhattisgarh., District : Durg, Chhattisgarh Versus ---Petitioner 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary Revenue And Disaster Management Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, New Raipur, Thana And District Raipur Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - The Commisioner Durg, Commissionary Durg District Durg Chhattisgarh., District : Durg, Chhattisgarh 3 - The Collector, Durg, Collectorate Durg Tahsil Durg, District Durg Chhattisgarh., District : Durg, Chhattisgarh 4 - The Sub Divisional Officer, Patan Cum Land Acquisition Officer, Tahsil And District Durg Chhattisgarh., District : Durg, Chhattisgarh 5 - The Sub Divisional Officer, Durg, Tahsil And District Durg Chhattisgarh., District : Durg, Chhattisgarh 6 - Power Grid Corporation Of India Limited, Through The Senior Manager, Village Janjgir, Thana Bhilai And Tahsil Dhamdha District Durg Chhattisgarh., District : Durg, Chhattisgarh --- Respondents 17 WPC No. 1994 of 2018 1 - Punit Ram Sahu S/o S/o Late Bisahu Sahu Aged About 71 Years R/o Village Janjgiri, Tahsil Dhamdha District, Durg, Chhattisgarh., District : Durg, Chhattisgarh Versus ---Petitioner 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Revenue And Disaster Management Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, New Raipur, Thana And District Raipur, Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - The Commissioner, Durg, Commissionary Durg District Durg, Chhattisgarh., District : Durg, Chhattisgarh 3 - The Collector, Durg, Collectorate Durg Tahsil Durg, District Durg, Chhattisgarh., District : Durg, Chhattisgarh 4 - The Sub Divisional Officer, Patan Cum Land Acquisition Officer, Tahsil And District Durg, Chhattisgarh., District : Durg, Chhattisgarh 5 - The Sub Divisional Officer, Durg, Tahsil And District Durg, Chhattisgarh., District : Durg, Chhattisgarh 6 - Power Grid Corporation Of India Limited, Through The Senior Manager, Village Janjgir, Thana Bhilai And Tahsil Dhamdha District Durg, Chhattisgarh., District : Durg, Chhattisgarh --- Respondents WPC No. 2001 of 2018 1 - Peetambar Sahu S/o S/o Dhururam Sahu Aged About 55 Years R/o Village Janjgiri, Tahsil Dhamdha District Durg, Chhattisgarh., District : Durg, Chhattisgarh Versus ---Petitioner 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Revenue And Disaster Management Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, New Raipur, Thana And District Raipur, Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - The Commissioner Durg, Commissionary Durg, District Durg, Chhattisgarh., District : Durg, Chhattisgarh 18 3 - The Collector, Durg, Collectorate Durg Tahsil Durg, District Durg, Chhattisgarh., District : Durg, Chhattisgarh 4 - The Sub Divisional Officer, Patan Cum Land Acquisition Officer, Tahsil And District Durg, Chhattisgarh., District : Durg, Chhattisgarh 5 - The Sub Divisional Officer, Durg, Tahsil And District Durg, Chhattisgarh., District : Durg, Chhattisgarh 6 - Power Grid Corporation Of India Limited, Through The Senior Manager, Village Janjgir, Thana Bhilai And Tahsil Dhamdha, District Durg, Chhattisgarh., District : Durg, Chhattisgarh --- Respondents WPC No. 2000 of 2018 1 - Maniram Yadav S/o Mahettar Aged About 55 Years R/o Village Janjgiri, Tahsil Dhamdha District Durg Chhattisgarh., District : Durg, Chhattisgarh Versus ---Petitioner 1 - State of Chhattisgarh through the Secretary, Revenue and Disaster Management Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, New Raipur, Thana and District Raipur Chhattisgarh., District Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - The Commissioner, Durg, Commissionary Durg, District Durg Chhattisgarh., District Durg, Chhattisgarh 3 - The Collector, Durg, Collectorate Durg Tahsil Durg, District Durg Chhattisgarh., District : Durg, Chhattisgarh 4 - The Sub Divisional Officer, Patan cum Land Acquisition Officer, Tahsil And District Durg Chhattisgarh., District Durg, Chhattisgarh 5 - The Sub Divisional Officer, Durg, Tahsil and District Durg Chhattisgarh., District Durg, Chhattisgarh 6 - Power Grid Corporation of India Limited, through the Senior Managar, Village Janjgir, Thana Bhilai, and Tahsil Dhamdha District Durg Chhattisgarh, District Durg, Chhattisgarh --- Respondents 19 (Cause title is taken from Case Information System) For Petitioners For Respective Respondents : : Shri N.K. Malaviya, Advocate Shri Abhishek Sinha, Senior Advocate with Ms. Shrishti Upadhyay, Advocate, Shri Vaibhav Shukla, Advocate and Shri Suyashdhar Badgaiya, Deputy Government Advocate Hon’ble Shri Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Order on Board 20/02/2025 1. The present writ petitions have been filed for grant of relief while claiming relief for declaring the land acquisition proceeding and final award dated 2.1.1998 to be lapsed and to return the land of the petitioners, to direct the respondents to give compensation for utilisation of the land of the petitioners and to compensate them against their harassment for a long period of 20
Decision
years. Since identical issue has been raised in all the writ petitions, they are clubbed and heard together and decided by this common order. 2. Writ Petition (C) No.1999 of 2018 is taken up as a lead case for deciding its all connected matters with the consent of the parties as in all the writ petitions similar issue has been raised and even the reliefs are almost similar in all the writ petitions. 3. According to the petitioners, the land in question which was acquired from the petitioners or from their fore-fathers was the land of the petitioners in which names of their fore-fathers were recorded. However, without issuance of any notice etc., the land of the petitioners was acquired and after passing award the land was handed over to the beneficiaries, i.e., respondent No.6/Power Grid Corporation of India in which the Power Grid Corporation 20 has constructed a Power Grid. However, the petitioners in all the writ petitions could not get compensation either for acquisition of their land or for utilization of their land for a long period of 20 years and as such the action on the part of the respondents authorities are palpably illegal and the petitioners are required to be given following reliefs which have been prayed for in WPC No.1999 of 2018: “1. That, the petitioner is seeking relief in this Writ Petition that Land Acquisition case no. 15 A/82- Land Acquisition/95-96 and finally award was passed on 2.1.1998 be declare lapsed only in respect of the petitioner's land as mentioned in the instant Writ Petition, which was in his name in revenue record or earlier in his ancestors name when it was acquired under the notification dtd. 20.12.1995 for which acquisition of Land at Village Janjgiri P.H. no. 44 total area 86.518 Hec. for Power Grid Corporation for installing sub station. The photo copy of the award is annexed as Annexure P-1. 2. Further, the same land return to the petitioner, the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the Respondents to give compensation for utilisation the land since notification U/s 17 of the Land Acquisition Act 1894, as per the provisions of the law and also compensate for harassment of the petitioner for such a long period of 20 years. Hence this Writ Petition. 3. Any other relief, order/direction may be pleased to issue in the facts and circumstances of the case including imposing costs.” 4. The case, as projected by the petitioners, is that by the notification dated 20.12.1995 for acquisition of land at Village Janjgiri, P.H. No.44, total area 86.518 hectares for Power Grid Corporation bearing case no.15-A/82 Land Acquisition/95-96 acquired for Power Grid Corporation for installing 400/200 KV Electric Sub-Centre. The subject land was acquired and subsequently award was passed on 2.1.1998. In the award, the Land Acquisition Officer has jointly awarded for all account holder a sum of 21 Rs.39,30,416/- as in the revenue records the subject land is recorded as "Charagah Land". For disbursement of this amount, it is required to ascertain the names of the land holders, but, till date, the Respondents could not ascertain the names of the land holders, despite the villagers have filed several applications or representations jointly along with other villagers or individually before the Authorities for payment of the compensation. In the year 2012, as an attempt to get compensation, they have filed affidavit before the Authorities, but, payment of the compensation is still awaited by the petitioners. Thus, till date, they have never offered any amount of compensation, therefore, question of denial does not arise in the instant case. Even they have paid to some similarly situated persons who approached the Court and sought relief. With the passage of time, land holders, whose names were in the revenue record died and their legal heirs are pursuing the claim. It is pertinent to mention that by invoking the emergency clause under Section 17 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 the possession of the land has been taken. Hence the present petitions. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the petitioners’ land which was in their names or their ancestors names at that time was acquired under the notification dated 20.12.1995 for acquisition of land at Village Janjgiri, P.H. No.44, total area 86.518 hectares for Power Grid Corporation for installing sub station. The acquisition proceedings is commenced under Land Acquisition case no. 15-A/82-Land Acquisition/95- 96 and finally award was passed on 2.1.1998. These acquisition proceedings only in respect of the petitioner affected land of pooled land which is commonly known as Charagah, which may be declared lapsed because it is hit by provisions U/s 24 (1) (a) and U/s 24 (2) of the Right to Fair 22 Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 because till date the Respondents have never offered/tendered the amount of compensation, despite the petitioners have made several efforts by filing application individually or jointly along with other villagers of Village Janjgiri. But the non-action or the non-payment of the compensation to the petitioners is actually denial of the compensation and non-tendering the compensation till date because in the instant case the Land Acquisition officer has not ascertained the actual beneficiary persons or person interested till date, nor deposited in the Court according to provisions of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013. Learned counsel further submits that the subject land was acquired and subsequently award was passed on 2.1.1998. In the award, by mistake, the Land Acquisition Officer has awarded jointly for all account holders Rs. 39,30,416/-as lump sum for "Charagah Land" or as a Charagah land. It was in the land which was in use as pooled land in which villagers were using for their agricultural use. For disbursement of this amount, it is required to ascertain the names of land holders. In the year 2012, as an attempt to get compensation, affidavit was filed before the Authorities, but, payment of compensation is still awaited by the petitioners. Till date, they have never offered any amount of compensation, therefore, question of denial does not arise in the instant cases. Even they have paid to some similarly situated persons who approached the Court and sought relief. With the passage of time, land holders whose names were in the revenue record died and their legal heirs are pursuing the claim. It is pertinent to mention that by invoking the emergency clause u/s 17 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 the possession of the land has been taken. 6. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the State submits that the 23 petitioners are aggrieved by non-payment of compensation in pursuance of the award dated 2.1.1998 in Land Acquisition proceeding bearing case no. 15-A/82 Land Acquisition/95-96 acquired for Power Grid Corporation for installing 400/200 KV Electric Sub-Centre. Further the petitioners have alleged that for disbursement of compensation amount, land holders’ names were to be ascertained, which has not been done till date. Also similarly situated persons have been disbursed the amount of compensation and only the petitioners have been deprived. The State/respondents initially object to unwarranted and unexplained delay of 20 years in approaching this Court, which requires the instant writ petitions to be dismissed at the threshold. Further, the instant writ petitions involve disputed question of facts, which is not possible to be determined before this Court. The petitioners are further claiming relief that the said land acquisition proceeding be declared as lapsed under Section 24 of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013. It is submitted that since the possession has been taken away from the original land owners, hence, provision contained in Section 24 of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 does not attract. Further, it is humbly submitted that similarly situated persons had approached this Court by preferring WP No. 2040/1999 and sought a direction to pay compensation in lieu of the acquisition of their lands. The said writ petition was heard and decided vide order dated 9.09.2010 holding that the petitioners therein, if produce revenue records to establish their ownership on the land in dispute, are entitled to compensation as determined in the award with effect from the date of taking over the possession with interest @ 9% till the payment is made. Thereafter, the 24 petitioners approached the respondents and failed to establish the ownership on the land in question by way of documentary evidence like revenue records showing the entries about their fore-fathers over the land in question and therefore, not entitled for compensation. On the instruction of the Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue), Dhamdha, an inquiry to ascertain ownership of the land in question was conducted by the Naib Tahsildar, Dhamdha in which the ownership of as many as 18 land oustees whose lands were acquired for the project was ascertained, but, in the said list, neither the names of the petitioners nor the names of their ancestors were mentioned and to demonstrate the above a copy of the report submitted by the Naib Tahsildar, Dhamdha is already filed as Annexure R/1. It is pertinent to mention here that since the land in question was recorded in the revenue records as "Shamilat Charagah" of the year 1932-33 and later on this Court vide order dated 9.09.2010 passed in W.P. No. 2040/1999 held that the entitlement of compensation with respect to the land recorded under the head of "Shamilat Charagah" along with the interest subject to production of the document such as revenue records establishing their ownership over the acquired land, hence, if the petitioners produce any revenue records before the respondents depicting the ownership of either their ancestors or the petitioners over the land in question, the compensations so determined by way of the award dated 2.1.1998 would be released to them accordingly. The submissions made hereinabove make it amply clear that the petitioners are not entitled to any relief, as due procedure has been followed by the competent authority while passing the impugned orders. 7. Shri Abhishek Sinha, learned Senior Counsel appearing for respondent No.6/Power Grid Corporation submits that there is nothing on record to show 25 that the petitioners are having any ownership in respect of land which has been acquired. The petitioners have no legal right as also they are not having any locus standi to file these petitions. The petitioners are not the persons aggrieved and for this learned Senior Counsel has relied upon the order of this Court passed in WPC No.6450 of 2024 (Aivaj Dewangan v. State of Chhattisgarh and others) in which it has been stated as under: “6. It is the trite law that ordinarily, the person who seeks a relief under Article 226 of the Constitution of India must have personal or individual right in the subject-matter and the word “ordinarily” includes, a person who has been prejudicially affected by an act or omission of an authority.” It was also argued that award was passed way back on 2.1.1998 and thereafter 20 years have lapsed, however, the petitioners have not taken any step and as such the present writ petitions suffer from vice of delay and laches and for this count alone the petitions are liable to be dismissed. He has placed reliance upon a judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Mutha Associates and others v. State of Maharashtra and others, (2013) 14 SCC 304, in which it has been held as under: “22. The view taken by the Constitution Bench in Aflatoon v. Lt. Governor of Delhi, (1975) 4 SCC 285 has been reiterated by another Constitution Bench decision in Indrapuri Griha Nirman Sahakari Samiti Ltd. v. State of Rajasthan, (1975) 4 SCC 296. To the same effect are the decisions of this Court in Municipal Corpn. of Greater Bombay v. Industrial Development Investment Co. (P) Ltd., (1996) 11 SCC 501, Ramjas Foundation v. Union of India, 1993 Supp (2) SCC 20 and Larsen & Toubro Ltd. v. State of Gujarat, (1998) 4 SCC 387. The common thread that runs through all these decisions is that in order to succeed in a challenge to the acquisition proceedings the interested person must remain vigilant and watchful. If instead of doing so, the interested person allows grass to grow under his feet, he cannot invoke the powers of judicial review exercisable under Article 226 of the Constitution. The 26 failure of the interested persons to seek redress at the appropriate stage and without undue delay would in such cases give rise to an inference that they have waived of their objections to the acquisitions. The bottom line is that the High Court can legitimately decline to invoke their powers of judicial review to interfere with the acquisition proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution if the challenge to such proceedings is belated and the explanation offered a mere moonshine as is the position in the case at hand. The High Court has in the fact situation of this case rightly exercised its discretion in refusing to interfere with the acquisition proceedings.” 8. So far as applicability of Section 24 of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, it is not attracted in the present matter, since the award has already been passed and the acquisition of land has already taken place, as such in view of the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Indore Development Authority v. Manoharlal, (2020) 8 SCC 129, no relief can be granted to the petitioners. 9. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the record with utmost care and circumspection. 10. In Sukh Dutt Ratra and another v. State of Himachal Pradesh, (2022) 7 SCC 508, it has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court as under: “17. When seen holistically, it is apparent that the State's actions, or lack thereof, have in fact compounded the injustice meted out to the appellants and compelled them to approach this Court, albeit belatedly. The initiation of acquisition proceedings initially in the 1990s occurred only at the behest - of the High Court. Even after such judicial intervention, the State continued to only extend the benefit of the Court's directions to those who specifically approached the courts. The State's lackadaisical conduct is discernible from this action of initiating acquisition proceedings selectively, only in respect to the lands of those writ petitioners who had approached the court in earlier proceedings, and 27 not other landowners, pursuant to the orders dated 23-4-2007 (in Anakh Singh v. State of H.P., 2007 SCC OnLine HP 220) and 20-12-2013 (in Onkar Singh v. State, CWP No.1356 of 2010, Order dated 20.12.2013 (HP), respectively. In this manner, at every stage, the State sought to shirk its responsibility of acquiring land required for public use in the manner prescribed by law. 19. The facts of the present case reveal that the State has, in a clandestine and arbitrary manner, actively tried to limit disbursal of compensation as required by law, only to those for which it was specifically prodded by the courts, rather than to all those who are entitled. This arbitrary action, which is also violative of the appellants' prevailing Article 31 right (at the time of cause of action), undoubtedly warranted consideration, and intervention by the High Court, under its Article 226 jurisdiction. This Court, in State of U.P. v. Manohar, (2005) 2 SCC 126 - a similar case where the name of the aggrieved had been deleted from revenue records leading to his dispossession from the land without payment of compensation held: (SCC pp. 128-29, paras 6-8) "6. Having heard the learned counsel for the appellants, we are satisfied that the case projected before the court by the appellants is utterly untenable and not worthy of emanating from any State which professes the least regard to being a welfare State. When we pointed out to the learned counsel that, at this stage at least, the State should be gracious enough to accept its mistake and promptly pay the compensation to the respondent, the State has taken an intractable attitude and persisted in opposing what appears to be a just and reasonable claim of the respondent. 7. Ours is a constitutional democracy and the rights available to the citizens are declared by the Constitution. Although Article 19(1)(f) was deleted by the Forty-fourth Amendment to the Constitution, Article 300-A has been placed in the Constitution, which reads as follows: 300-A. Persons not to be deprived of property save by authority of law. No person shall be deprived of his property save by authority of law. 8. This is a case where we find utter lack of legal authority for deprivation of the respondent's property by the appellants who are State 28 authorities. In our view, this case was an eminently fit one for exercising the writ jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution." 20. Again, in Tukaram Kana Joshi v. Maharashtra Industrial Development Corpn., (MIDC), (2013) 1 SCC 353 while dealing with a similar fact situation, this Court held as follows: (SCC p. 359, para 11) "11. There are authorities which state that delay and laches extinguish the right to put forth a claim. Most of these authorities pertain to service jurisprudence, grant of compensation for a wrong done to them decades ago, recovery of statutory dues, claim for educational facilities and other categories of similar cases, etc. Though, it is true that there are a few authorities that lay down that delay and laches debar a citizen from seeking remedy, even if his fundamental right has been violated, under Article 32 or 226 of the Constitution, the case at hand deals with a different scenario altogether. The functionaries of the State took over possession of the land belonging to the appellants without any sanction of law. The appellants had asked repeatedly for grant of the benefit of compensation. The State must either comply with the procedure laid down for acquisition, or requisition. or any other permissible statutory mode." 24. And with regard to the contention of delay and laches, this Court went on to hold: (Vidya Devi v. State of H.P., (2020) 2 SCC 569, SCC pp. 574-75, para 12) "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 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 29 justice, and not defeat it. P.S. Sadasivaswamy v. State of T.N., (1975) 1 SCC 152." 27. For the above reasons, the appeal is allowed and the impugned order! of the High Court is hereby set aside. Given the disregard for the appellants' fundamental rights which has caused them to approach this Court and receive remedy decades after the act of dispossession, we also deem it appropriate to direct the respondent State to pay legal costs and expenses of Rs 50,000 to the appellants. Pending applications, if any, are hereby disposed of.” 11. In Bernard Francis Joseph Vaz and others v. Government of Karnataka and others, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 20, it has been held as under: “38. In the aforesaid case of Tukaram Kana Joshi (supra), this Court observed that the right to property is now considered to be not only a constitutional or a statutory right but also a "human right". It was further observed that human rights are considered in the realm of individual rights, such as right to health, right to livelihood, right to shelter and employment, etc. This Court further observed that now, however, human rights are gaining an even greater multifaceted dimension and that the right to property is considered very much to be a part of such new dimension. 41. In the case of Ultra-Tech Cement Ltd. v. Mast Ram, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 2598, this Court observed thus: "D. Role of the State under Article 300-A of the Constitution 43. The Right to Property in our country is a net of intersecting rights which has been explained by this Court in Kolkata Municipal Corporation v. Bimal Kumar Shah, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 968. A division bench of this Court identified seven non-exhaustive sub-rights that accrue to a landowner when the State intends to acquire his/her property. The relevant observations of this Court under the said judgment are reproduced below: "...27. 30 ... Seven such sub-rights can be identified, albeit non-exhaustive. These are: i) duty of the State to inform the person that it intends to acquire his property the right to notice, ii) the duty of the State to hear objections to the acquisition the right to be heard, iii) the duty of the State to inform the person of its decision to acquire the right to a reasoned decision, iv) the duty of the State to demonstrate that the acquisition is for public purpose the duty to acquire only for public purpose, v) the duty of the State to restitute and rehabilitate the right of restitution or fair compensation, vi) the duty of the State to conduct the process of acquisition efficiently and within prescribed timelines of the proceedings the right to an efficient and expeditious process, and vil) final conclusion of the proceedings leading to vesting - the right of conclusion..." This Court held that a fair and reasonable compensation is the sine qua non for any acquisition process. 44. In Roy Estate v. State of Jharkhand, (2009) 12 SCC 194; Union of India v. Mahendra Girji, (2010) 15 SCC 682 and Mansaram v. S.P. Pathak, (1984) 1 SCC 125, this Court underscored the importance of following timelines prescribed by the statutes as well as determining and disbursing compensation amount expeditiously within reasonable time. 45. The subject land came to be acquired by invoking special powers in cases of urgency under Section 17(4) of the 1894 Act. The invocation of Section 17(4) extinguishes the statutory avenue for the landowners under Section 5A to raise objections to the acquisition proceedings. These circumstances impose onerous duty on the State to facilitate justice to the landowners by providing them with fair and reasonable compensation expeditiously. The seven sub-rights of the landowners identified by this Court in Kolkata Municipal Corporation (supra) are corresponding duties of the State. We regret to note that the amount of Rs. 3,05,31,095/- determined as compensation under the Supplementary Award has not been paid to the landowners for a period of more than two years and the State of Himachal Pradesh as a welfare State has made no effort to get the same paid at the earliest. 46. This Court has held in Dharnidhar Mishra (D) v. State of Bihar, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 932 and State of Haryana v. Mukesh Kumar, (2011) 10 SCC 404 that the right to property is now considered to be not 31 only a constitutional or statutory right, but also a human right. This Court held in Tukaram Kana Joshi thr. Power of Attorney Holder v. M.I.D.C., (2013) 1 SCC 353 that in a welfare State, the statutory authorities are legally bound to pay adequate compensation and rehabilitate the persons whose lands are being acquired. The nonfulfilment of such obligations under the garb of industrial development, is not permissible for any welfare State as that would tantamount to uprooting a person and depriving them of their constitutional/human right. 47. That time is of the essence in determination and payment of compensation is also evident from this Court's judgment in Kukreja Construction Company v. State of Maharashtra, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 2547 wherein it has been held that once the compensation has been determined, the same is payable immediately without any requirement of a representation or request by the landowners and a duty is cast on the State to pay such compensation to the land losers, otherwise there would be a breach of Article 300-A of the Constitution. 48. In the present case, the Government of Himachal Pradesh as a welfare State ought to have proactively intervened in the matter with a view to ensure that the requisite amount towards compensation is paid at the earliest. The State cannot abdicate its constitutional and statutory responsibility of payment of compensation by arguing that its role was limited to initiating acquisition proceedings under the MOU signed between the Appellant, JAL and itself. We find that the delay in the payment of compensation to the landowners after taking away ownership of the subject land from them is in contravention to the spirit of the constitutional scheme of Article 300A and the idea of a welfare State. 49. Acquisition of land for public purpose is undertaken under the power of eminent domain of the government much against the wishes of the owners of the land which gets acquired. When such a power is exercised, it is coupled with a bounden duty and obligation on the part of the government body to ensure that the owners whose lands get acquired are paid compensation/awarded amount as declared by the statutory award at the earliest. 50. The State Government, in peculiar circumstances, was expected to make the requisite payment towards compensation to the 32 landowners from its own treasury and should have thereafter proceeded to recover the same from JAL. Instead of making the poor landowners to run after the powerful corporate houses, it should have compelled JAL to make the necessary payment." 45. Recently, this Court in the aforesaid case of Ultra-Tech Cement Ltd. (supra) observed that the Government as a welfare State ought to have proactively intervened in the matter with a view to ensure that the requisite amount towards compensation is paid at the earliest. It was further observed that the State cannot abdicate its constitutional and statutory responsibility of payment of compensation by arguing that its role was limited to initiating acquisition proceedings. It was, therefore, observed that the delay in the payment of compensation, in accordance with law, to the landowners after taking away ownership of the subject land from them is in contravention to the spirit of the constitutional scheme of Article 300-A and the idea of a welfare State.” 12. According to Section 237 of the Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code the gochar land can be said to be nistari land and the right of which is vested under the State and no one can claim the gochar land to be a personal land. Section 237 of the Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code is quoted below: “237. Collector to set apart land for exercise of Nistar rights.-(1) Subject to the rules made under this Code, the Collector may set apart unoccupied land for the following purposes, namely,- (a) for timber or fuel reserve; (b) for pasture, grass bir or fodder reserve; (c) for burial ground and cremation ground; (d) for gaothan and establishment of Gowshala and animal holding premises; (e) for encamping ground; (f) for threshing floor; (g) for bazar; 33 (h) for skinning ground; (i) for manure pits; (j) for public purposes such as schools, play grounds, parks, roads, lanes, drains and the like; and (k) for any other purposes which may be prescribed for the exercise of right of Nistar. (3) Subject to the rules made under this Code, the Collector after securing the land mentioned in clause (b) of sub-section (1) to minimum two percent of the total agriculture land of that village, may divert such excess land as mentioned in clause (b) of sub-section (1) into any other purposes as agriculture, abadi, residential projects, construction of roads, canals, tanks, hospitals, schools, colleges, Government offices, public godowns, power system, gaushalas, excavation of clay by potters, minor minerals or any other public utility projects as may be determined, by the State Government. (3-A) Where the land kept for the purposes mentioned under clause (b) of sub-section (1) is found within the area identified for any industrial, commercial or mining project, then the collector may divert such land for the above mentioned purposes, but such diversion can be made only when equivalent land is provided for the purpose of clause (b) of sub-section (1) within the same village. (4) When it becomes indispensable to divert the land set apart for the purposes mentioned in sub-section (1) for such projects which are owned or approved by the State Government, but not covered under sub-section (3), the Collector, after satisfying himself that alternative land of equivalent area in the same village has been made available for fulfilling the same Nistar Rights, may divert the land for such purposes by passing a reasoned order to this effect.” 13. From perusal of the documents available on record, the first and foremost question which arises for consideration is whether the petitioners are owners and title holders of the land in question which has been acquired by the State and handed over to respondent No.6 for establishment of a power grid station by respondent No.6. From the documents it seems that the petitioners are 34 claiming compensation on account of acquisition of land in question on the ground that the land in question belongs to their forefathers. From the documents, it seems that the land in question belongs to their forefathers. However, from the documents, it seems that the land in question is recorded as charagah land which cannot be said to be land belonging to the petitioners or their forefathers on the basis of their title. The petitioners have filed certain document which they have obtained under the Right to Information Act. The said document is a copy of the land record pertaining to the year 1931-32. The aforesaid document goes to show that during the course of chakbandi and jamabandi the land in question were recorded as shamilat gochar and it goes to show that names of forefathers of the petitioners were also recorded. Shamilat gochar land means common grazing land or land which is traditionally used for grazing livestock, i.e., owned by the village community (gram sabha, gram panchayat) and it is intended for common use of the villagers. These lands are typically owned by gram sabha or gram panchayat and it is not private owned land. The primary purpose of shamilat gochar land is to provide grazing land for the village community. 14. All lands including grazing lands are considered to be the property of the State Government according to Section 57 of the Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code. The term shamilat gochar is not explicitly mentioned in the Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code, however, the provision of Section 237(1) (b) of the Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code covers setting aside the land for pasture, grass bir or fodder which the function for shamilat gochar land. The land set apart for special purpose like shamilat gochar cannot be permitted to be occupied by any person and they can be evicted under Section 248 of the Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code if it is illegally occupied. The allotment of 35 pasture land reserve under Section 237 of the Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code to the landless persons of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes are also held not to be in accordance with law. In sum and substance, shamilat gochar land is considered to be State property. Unauthorised occupation can lead to eviction under Section 248 of the Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code. The Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code provides framework for resolving disputes of shamilat gochar land. Now, the question arises that when the land in question is a shamilat charagah being the property of the State, only on the basis of one document pertaining to the year 1931-32 in which also the land was recorded as shamilat charagah the petitioners or their forefathers cannot be held to be title holders of the subject land. Since there is no document to suggest that the land in question belongs to the forefathers of the petitioners or the petitioners, the petitioners cannot claim any relief in respect of acquisition and compensation. Unless and until cogent evidence in respect of ownership and title is produced, the petitioners cannot be held to be title holders of the land in question which has been said to be acquired under the land acquisition process. 15. In the matter of Kantilal v. Commissioner, Indore Division, reported in 1971 MPLJ SN 95 (DB), a Division Bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court has held as under: 8. General. - Section 237 of the Land Revenue Code provides that the Collector should set apart land for exercise of nistar rights of which a number of different categories are set out in section 237(1), one of them being (b) for pasture, grass bir or fodder reserve. The land set apart for nistar of whatever kind can be diverted for another purpose by the order of the Collector. An appeal lies from such an order to the Commissioner. In the event of the appeal being heard by the Commissioner, or of an improper exercise of his revisional powers by him, a further revision 36 would lie to the higher authority, in this case the Board of Revenue, from the order of Commissioner. On the other hand, the petitioner himself has let the Commissioner's order stand, and has not gone up in revision on the ground that there being an appeal provided it was not legal to have exercised the revisional powers. Another point that goes very much against the petitioner and in effect would make improper for the Court to grant any relief under Article 226 is the patent mala fide of the entire transaction. Allotment of land is not governed by the statute but by executive instructions. As it turns out there was a statutory provision in this regard in section 162 of the Land Revenue Code supported by rules. That section having been repealed the allotment is now governed by Revenue Book Circular IV. The Circular is silent about the revising authority when the allotting officer is himself the Collector. Case law has been cited in this regard to the effect that when statute provides for certain authorities exercising appellate or revisional power, it is only those authorities that can exercise it and if no authority is mentioned, such powers can not be exercised. There cannot be two views about it and accordingly it is unnecessary to set out case law. But when we are dealing with executive rules and a revision is provided for from the order of the 'allotting officer', the inference is that in every case of allotment there is a revision and whenever the head of the officer who is usually the allotting officer, a superior officer does the allotment, the revising authority would be that higher authority who bears the same relation to the allotting officer in the instant case as the Collector bears to the usual allotting officer, that is the Tahsildar. Obviously in such situation the revision would lie to the Commissioner. The point to note is that while interpreting the executive instructions we would be guided by the spirit. Accordingly we would hold that the Commissioner was the proper revising authority.” 16. In a recent judgment in the matter of Dalip Ram v. State of Punjab, AIR 2025 SC 898, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed as under: “1. The contentions and the factual matrix involved in the captioned Special Leave Petitions would reveal that the bone of contentions in them, essentially is one and the same viz., whether the subject lands were Shamlat deh, allotted (if at all allotment was there) on quasi-permanent basis to displaced person(s) or whether they were Shamlat deh otherwise 37 transferred to any person by sale or by any other manner whatsoever after commencement of Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 (for short, 'the Act'). An answer to that question in the affirmative would fetch protection to such allotment or transfer by sale or by any other manner, statutorily by virtue of the amendment of Section 2(g)(ii-a) of the Act. Hence, the fate of most of these Special Leave Petitions is dependent mainly on that question. … 3. As part of such consideration, we will first refer to the position of Section 2 (g) of the Act after the aforesaid amendment and it reads thus: - "2 (g) " Shamlat Deh includes :- (1) Lands described in the revenue records as shamlat deh excluding abadi deh; (2) Shamlat tikkas; But does not include land which (ii) has been allotted on quasi-permanent basis to a displaced person; (ii-a) was shamlat deh, but, has been allotted on quasi-permanent basis to a displaced person, or, has been otherwise transferred to any person by sale or by any other manner whatsoever after the commencement of this Act, but on or before the 9th day of July, 1985. 4. A perusal of the amended Section 2(g)(ii-a) of the Act would reveal that the inclusive definition of Shamlat deh in the Act is actually amended by inserting a non-inclusive clause. In terms of the same, Shamlat deh, if allotted, on quasi-permanent basis to a displaced person or has been otherwise transferred to any person by sale or by way of any other manner, whatsoever, after the commencement of that Act on or before 9th day of July, 1985, it would fall out of the inclusion of the definition of Shamlat deh under Section 2 (g) of the Act. In other words, such allottee/transferee by sale or by any other manner would get the protection statutorily available as relates such land(s). 24. It is a fact that the authorities have arrived at the conclusion that the subject lands vested with the Gram Panchayat based on the finding that the nature of the subject lands, going by the records, revealed their nature as Shamlat deh. The fact is that in all these cases based on such contentions and also the fact that the petitioners are in unauthorised 38 occupation of such lands, the Panchayat had earlier filed petitions under Section 7 of the Act for evicting the petitioners. It is to be noted that in some of the cases, it is to avoid the impact in case of disposal of such applications in favour of the Panchayats concerned that the petitioners have filed applications under Section 11 of the Act. In view of the fact that the different clauses under Section 2(g) of the Act have individual characteristics and independent of each other, each one would cover the nature of Shamlat deh, the High Court repelled the contentions, especially referring to the decision in C.W.P. No.2264 of 1986, titled as "Gram Panchayat Village Mulepur Tehsil Sirhand Distt. Patiala v. Sucha Singh (Deceased) through LRS and Others". Thus, a careful consideration of the orders impugned before the High Court as also the judgment of the High Court would reveal that they are all at ad idem on the question of the nature of the subject lands viz., as Shamlat deh. It is the consideration of all such aspects and analysing the factual positions revealed from the evidence on record that the High Court confirmed the orders of the authorities. In view of the aforesaid facts and the failure on the part of the petitioners to show the prejudice on account of the non-framing of the issues in the circumstances obtained in such cases and above all, in the absence of any perversity in the impugned judgment, we are not inclined to interfere with the impugned judgment, which would give a quietus to the long-drawn-out litigations of more than one or two decades. At any rate, the petitioners have failed to make out any case warranting interference by this Court. In that view of the matter, the impugned judgment dated 06.07.2012 is upheld. … 37. It is in the said circumstances that the question arose for consideration was mentioned in paragraph 11 of the judgment sought to be impugned as extracted hereinbefore. The petitioner who came into possession of the land(s) as aforesaid claimed ownership over the land in dispute by filing petition under Section 11 of the Act. In the contextual situation, it is relevant to refer to Section 11 of the Act. "11. Decision of claims of right, title or interest in shamilat deh. (1) Any person or a Panchayat claiming right, title or interest in any land, vested or deemed to have been vested in a Panchayat, may submit to the Collector, within such time, as may be prescribed, a statement of his claim in writing and signed and verified in the prescribed manner and the Collector shall have jurisdiction to decide such claim in such manner as may be prescribed. 39 (2) Any person or a Panchayat aggrieved by an order of the Collector made under sub-section (1) may, within sixty days from the date of the order, prefer an appeal to the Commissioner in such form and manner as may be prescribed and the Commissioner may after hearing the appeal, confirm, vary or reverse the order appealed from and may pass such order as he deems fit." 38. A perusal of the same would reveal that any person can maintain a petition under Section 11, claiming right, title or interest in any land, vested or deemed to have vested in a Panchayat. When that be so, the petitioner who claims a right in terms of order under Section 11 cannot be heard to contend that the land was never vested with the Panchayat, it could not have been deemed to have vested in a Panchayat, as he himself/the predecessors approached the authority under Section 11. In other words, the very filing of Section 11 of the Act, pre-supposes that the land in question in respect of which the applicant claims right, title or interest is a land vested or deemed to have been vested in a Panchayat. In short, the sine qua non for filing a petition under Section 11, claiming right, title or interest is that the land in question, over which such right, title or interest is claimed should be one vested or deemed to have been vested in the Panchayat concerned. 41. The High Court observed and held that the entries of Shamlat deh prior to consolidation, irrespective of any nomenclature would definitely vest the land in Gram Panchayat in terms of Section 2 (g)(1) and Section 4 of the Act, and therefore, the words 'Shamlat deh' simpliciter followed by any other entry would vest with the Gram Panchayat under the Act.” 17. While considering the relief sought by the petitioners the paramount consideration would be whether the relief as sought by the petitioners can be granted in the teeth of the fact that the petitioners could not prove their title upon the said land and only on the basis of a stray document in which name of one of the forefather is recorded but the nature of the land is recorded as “Shamilat Charagah” which is a general grazing field without having title of any particular person. It is upon the petitioners to establish their title so that necessary orders may be passed for grant of compensation which is lacking 40 in this case. As defined in the various authorities, shamilat charagah/shamilat deh/pasture land, denotes any grazing field and if any land is reserved for common grazing field it cannot be a property of any individual person even though name of one person is recorded. It is identical to a Nistari Land which is for the benefit of entire society. When the petitioners have filed these petitions, though at a belated stage, the first and foremost requirement is to establish their title and in lack of title and entitlement that was the reason before the authorities concerned due to which though the compensation was calculated, but, it was not disbursed even after taking possession of the land. The document which has been filed by the petitioners pertains to the year 1949. After coming into force of the provisions of the Madhya Pradesh/Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code from 2.10.1959 all the public lands/ponds which were being held by private persons, they were taken over by the State and now the State is the owner of all general property like pond, Shamilat charagah, Pasture land and Chhote Jhaad ka Jungle and no one can claim to be the owner of such lands. 18. Since the petitioners could not establish their title, the other question which is required to be determined in this case does not arise and accordingly the question of delay and laches as well as question of applicability of Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 is also not required to be adjudicated in the present case. It does not require consideration by this Court as the petitioners have failed to produce any cogent evidence in respect of their title. Perhaps that was the reason due to which even after calculation of compensation the amount could not be disbursed as no one is entitled for grant of compensation due to lack of their title for the said land. 41 19. As discussed above, the land being shamilat charagah land even in stretch of imagination cannot be held to be a private land owned by the petitioners, as such the relief sought by the petitioners cannot be granted. 20. Accordingly, all the writ petitions are liable to be dismissed and they are hereby dismissed. Gopal Singh Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) JUDGE