* - Kapil Bhatia S/o Raj Rishi Bhatia Aged About 31 Years, R/o Om v. 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary Department Of Revenue. Mahanadi Bhawan Naya
Case Details
1 Digitally signed by RAMESH KUMAR VATTI Date: 2025.09.02 12:25:08 +0530 2025:CGHC:42080 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 650 of 2013 * - Kapil Bhatia S/o Raj Rishi Bhatia Aged About 31 Years, R/o Om Kunj Anand Nagar Po Telibandha 492007 PS. Telibandha Raipu, Chhattisgarh --- Petitioner Versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary Department Of Revenue. Mahanadi Bhawan Naya Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - The Commissioner Raipur Division And Ex Officio Secretary To Govt Of Chhattisgarh, Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 3 - The Collector Raipur And Ex-Officio Deputy Secretary To Govt Of Chhattisgarh Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 4 - The Sub Divisional Officer Cum Land Acquisition Officer Arang / Abhanpur Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 5 - The New Raipur Development Authority Through Its Chief Executive Officer Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh --- Respondents And WPC No. 868 of 2012 1 - Ram Kishan Bhatia (Dead) Through Lrs. S/o (As Per Hon'ble Court Order Dated 08-08-2024) 1.1 - (1-A) Jayesh Kumar Bhatia S/o Late Ram Kishan Bhatia Aged About 53 Years R/o 286, Jawahar Nagar, Behind Agrasen Bhawan, P.O- Main Branch 492001, P.S. K.K. Road, Moudhapara, Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 1.2 - (1-B) Prakash Chand Bhatia S/o Late Ram Kishan Bhatia Aged About 42 Years R/o 286, Jawahar Nagar, Behind Agrasen Bhawan, P.O- Main Branch 492001, P.S. K.K. Road, Moudhapara, Raipur, Chhattisgarh. ---Petitioners Versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of Revenue, Mantralaya, D.K.S. Bhavan, Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 2 - The Commissioner Raipur Division, Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 3 - The Collector And Ex-Officio Deputy Secretary To Govt. Of Chhattisgarh Department Of Revenue, Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 2 4 - The Sub-Divisional Officer Cum Land Acquisition Officer Arang/ Abhanpur, Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 5 - The New Raipur Development Authority Naya Raipur, Through Its Chief Executive Officer, Raipur, Chhattisgarh. --- Respondents And WPC No. 915 of 2012
Legal Reasoning
* - Raj Rishi Bhatia S/o Lt. Shri H.C. Bhatia, R/o Om Kunj Anand Nagar Raipur, Chhattisgarh ---Petitioner Versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of Revenue, Mantralaya, D.K.S. Bhavan, Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - The Commissioner Raipur Division, Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 3 - The Collector And Ex-Officio Deputy Secretary To Govt. Of Chhattisgarh Department Of Revenue, Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 4 - The Sub-Divisional Officer Cum Land Acquisition Officer Arang/ Abhanpur, Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 5 - The New Raipur Development Authority Naya Raipur, Through Its Chief Executive Officer, Raipur, Chhattisgarh. --- Respondent And WPC No. 645 of 2013 * - Jayesh Kumar Bhatia S/o Ram Kishan Bhatia Aged About 42 Years R/o 286, Jawahar Nagar, Behind Agrasen Bhawan, P.O. Main Branch 492001 PS K.K. Road, Moudhapara, Raipur, Chhattisgarh ---Petitioner Versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of Revenue, Mahanadi Bhavan, Naya Raipur C.G., Chhattisgarh 2 - The Commissioner Raipur Division And Ex-Officio Secretary To Govt. Of Chhattisgarh, Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 3 - The Collector Raipur Division And Ex-Officio Secretary To Govt. Of Chattisgarh, Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 4 - The Sub-Divisional Officer Cum Land Acquisition Officer, Arang/Abhanpur, Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 5 - The New Raipur Development Authority Through Its Chief Executive Officer, Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh --- Respondents And 3 WPC No. 649 of 2013 * - Prakash Chand Bhatia S/o Ram Kishan Bhatia Aged About 31 Years 286 Jawahar Nagar Behind Agrasen Bhawan PO Main Branch 492001 PS. K.K. Road Moudhapara Raipur, Chhattisgarh ---Petitioner Versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary Department Of Revenue Mahanadi Bhawan Naya Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - The Commissioner, Raipur Division And Ex Officio Secretary To Govt. Of Chhattisgarh Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 3 - The Collector, Raipur And Ex Officio Deputy Secretary To Govt. Of Chhattisgarh, Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 4 - The Sub Divisional Officer Cum Land Acquisition Officer, Arang/Abhanpur, Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 5 - The New Raipur Development Authority Through Its Chief Executive Officer, Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh For Petitioner For Petitioners For Respondents No. 1 to 4/ State : : : : For Respondent No. 5/ New Development Raipur Authority --- Respondents Mr. A.N. Bhakta and Mr. Vivek Bhakta, Advocate in WPC No. 650/2013 Mr. Harish Chand Shukla, Advocate in WPC No. 868/2012; WPC No. 915/2012; WPC No. 645/2013 and WPC No. 649/2013 Mr. Rajkumar Gupta, Additional Advocate General Mr. Sumesh Bajaj, Advocate Hon’ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 20/08/2025 1. In these petitions the petitioners have challenged the award dated 01.03.2013 passed by the Land Acquisition Officer, Notifications issued under Sections 4(1) and 17(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short the ‘Act 1894’) dated 08.08.2011 and 03.12.2009 alongwith other impugned notifications and land acquisition proceedings. 2. The facts of the present case are that Notifications were issued on 4 08.08.2011 and 19.08.2011, whereby decision was taken by respondent No. 3 to acquire total 83 survey numbers admeasuring 29.98 hectares, situated at Village Parsada, Patwari Circle No. 21, Tehsil Aarang, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh in exercise of powers conferred under Sections 4(1) and 17(1) of Act 1894 and by dispensing with requirement of Section 5(A) of the Act 1894. The Notification dated 03.12.2009 is source of authority for respondents No. 2 and 3. for issuance of notice dated 08.08.2011. Notification under Sections 4(1) and 17(1) of the Act 1894 were published in two Newspaper namely Patrika and Haribhoomi on 19.08.2011. Notification under Sections 4(1) and 17(1) of the Act 1894 were published in the Official Gazette on 26.08.2011. Notification under Section 6 of the Act 1894 was published in two Newspaper namely Deshbandhu and Dainik Bhaskar on 24.10.2011 and in the Official Gazette on 18.11.2011. The final award was passed under the Act 1894 on 01.03.2013. The petitioners have filed these petitions in the year the month of May 2012 and month of May 2013. 3. It is pleaded that the award was passed on 01.03.2013 and it was passed pursuant to Notification dated 08.08.2011. The statutory period of one year for declaration under Section 6 of the Act 1894 expired on 19.08.2012. It is pleaded that the Notifications and the proceedings were challenged in WPC No. 5794/2011 and WPC No. 5933/2011 and
Decision
those petitions were disposed of vide order dated 17.04.2012. It is also pleaded that names of Nand Kishore Bhatiya, Sushil Bhatia and the petitioners are mentioned in the list of land oustees. It is also pleaded that the High Court vide order dated 17.04.2012 observed that stage 5 of handing over possession of disputed property has not yet come and thus the respondent No. 5 has not obtained possession because the proceedings before the land acquisition officer has not reached to the stage of Section 9 (1) or in any case the respondent No. 5 has not been directed to make payment of 80% amount and obtain possession. It is pleaded that respondents failed to pay 80% compensation amount as required under Section 17 of the Act 1894. It is also pleaded that the petitioners have been deprived of the opportunity of hearing under Section 5(A) of the Act 1894. It is also stated that the opportunity of hearing was afforded to Sushil Bhatia on 01.07.2012 according to the provisions of Section 5(A) of the Act 1894. It is pleaded that despite order passed in WPC No. 5794/2011 and WPC No. 5933/2011, the Land Acquisition Officer passed award on 01.04.2013. It is also stated that the Notification dated 08.08.2011 was issued with the approval of Commissioner, Raipur Division, who has been empowered in this regard by Notification dated 03.12.2009. It is further pleaded that according to the provisions of Section 79 of Madhya Pradesh Reorganisation Act, 2000, within a period of 02 years, the State of Chhattisgarh ought to have adapted or modified the existing Rules or Notifications, but no such step was taken, therefore, the Notification issued by the erstwhile State of Madhya Pradesh dated 15.02.1999 cannot be restored after 10 years on 03.12.2009. It is also pleaded that the acquisition proceedings do not disclose any cogent reason for acquiring lands or invoking urgency clause. 4. Learned counsels appearing for the respective petitioners would argue that the award dated 01.03.2013 is bad-in-law as same has been 6 passed without affording opportunity of hearing to the petitioners as provided under the provisions of Section 5(A) of the Act 1894. It is also argued that the direction issued in the matters of Sushil Bhatia and Nand Kishore Bhatiya were not followed in the case of the petitioners. It is also contended that there were no foundational facts for exercise of power under Sections 4(1) and 17(1) of the Act 1894. They would pray to allow these petitions. 5. On the other hand, learned counsels for the respective respondents would oppose. 6. Learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the State/respondents No. 1 to 4 would argue that the petitions must fail on the ground of delay and laches as Notification under Section 4(1) read with Section 17(1) was issued on 08.08.2011, whereas these petitions have been filed in the month of May, 2012 and in the month May, 2013. He would contend that after passing of award, the Notification issued prior in time cannot be questioned by the petitioners. In this regard, he placed reliance on the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of A.P. Industrial Infrastructure Corporation Ltd. Vs. Chinthamaneni Narasimha Rao & Ors. reported in 2011 AIR SCW 5047. It is further argued that WPC No. 5794/2011 was not filed in a representative capacity and order passed in that petition would be binding between the parties to the said petition. He would submit that the Notification was issued by the Minister-in-Charge in exercise of the powers conferred upon him by the Rules of Business under Article 166(2) and (3) of the Constitution of India. The Notification was in vogue from 1999 to 2003. In the year 2002, the State of Chhattisgarh had abolished the post of 7 Commissioner of all the Revenue Divisions and vide Notification dated 03.09.2003 powers under Section 11 of the Act 1894 were conferred upon the District Collectors. The State Government again created the post of Commissioners in all Revenue Divisions w.e.f. 14.04.2008. 7. Learned counsel appearing for the New Raipur Development Authority/respondents No. 5 would argue that Section 4 of Notification was signed by the Authority on 08.08.2011 and it was published in the Newspapers on 19.08.2011 and in the Official Gazette on 26.08.2011. He would contend that the petitioners in WPC No. 5794/2011 and WPC No. 5933/2011 approached the High Court in the month of September, 2011, whereas the petitioners waited for long 02 years. He would submit that the writ petitions of Nand Kishore Bhatiya and Sushil Bhatia were disposed of vide order dated 17.04.2012 which would make it clear that opportunity of hearing Section 5(A) of the Act 1894 was granted to those petitioners and Section 9 notice was declared illegal only qua those petitioners. He would contend that WPC No. 916/2012 was filed seeking relief(s) sought in the present batch of petitions and further seeking benefit of order dated 17.04.2012 passed in WPC No. 5794/2011 and WPC No. 5933/2011, but WPC No. 916/2012 was withdrawn on 11.05.2012. He would submit that award was passed on 01.03.2013 and thereafter these petitions were filed. 8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the document. 9. Learned counsels for the petitioners have placed reliance in the matter Harichand & Ors Vs. State of Chhattisgarh passed in WPC No. 757 of 2016 where land acquisition proceedings pertaining to Village Khandwa, Patwari Circle No. 22, Tehsil Abhanpur, District Raipur, 8 proceedings and award were set aside, inter alia on the ground that the Notification under Section 6(1) of the Act 1894 was issued beyond the period of limitation of 01 year. 10. In these batch of writ petitions, preliminary Notification under Section 4 of the Act 1894 was published on 19.08.2011 and Notification under Sections 4(1) and 17(1) of the Act 1894 were published in the Official Gazette on 26.08.2011, whereas Notification under Section 6 of the Act 1894 was published on 24.10.2011 and it was published in the Official Gazette on 18.11.2011 and such Notification was issued before expiry of 01 years from the date of publication of Notification, therefore, the facts of the present matters and the case of Harichand (supra) are distinguishable. 11. In the matter of Nand Kishore Bhatiya & Anr. Vs. State of Chhattisgarh & Ors. and connected matters passed on 17.04.2012 in WPC No. 5794 of 2011, the Notification issued under Sections 6 and 9 of the Act 1894 were declared illegal qua the petitioners and the Land Acquisition Officer was directed to issue fresh declaration under Sections 6 and 9 of the Act 1894 for those petitioners. It was also observed that in the Notification issued under Section 17(1) of the Act 1984, the nature of urgency was not specified. The facts of the present case are distinguishable from the facts of case of Nand Kishore Bhatiya & other connected matters (supra). In that case award was not passed, therefore, direction was issued to issue fresh notice under Sections 6 and 9 of the Act 1894, but in the present batch of cases, award has already been passed and the petitioners approached this Court after 02 years from the date of issuance of notification under Section 17(1) of the Act 1894 and that judgment was passed in cited 9 cases qua the petitioners of those petitions and it was not in rem. Therefore, the petitioners would not get any help from the orders passed in above referred cases. 12. With regard to Notification under Section 17(1) of the Act 1894, it was published on 24.10.2011 in two daily Newspaper and it was notified in the Official Gazette on 18.11.2011 and according to said Notification, the land was acquired for public purpose for development of New Raipur. Thereafter award was passed on 01.03.2013 whereas these petitions have been filed in the month of May, 2012 and in the month May, 2013 without explaining delay. If the petitioners were agrieved with the Notification issued under Section 17(1) of the Act 1894, they should have approached this Court immediately after its publication. The area where the land in question are located, majorly constitutes the recreational land use for the planning and development of recreational activities. The area has been planned to be developed as sports hub adjoining the existing cricket stadium. The developmental activities which are being undertaken by the respondent NRANVP are being done as per the Nava Raipur Atal Nagar Development Plan, 2031, which was approved and came into force on 08.08.2008. The urgency clause was invoked pursuant to approval granted by the Commissioner, Raipur Division for development of New Capital. 13. With regard to Notification dated 03.12.2009, whereby power has been conferred with the Commissioner, the State of Chhattisgarh had abolished the posts of Commissioners of all Revenue Divisions vide Notification dated 03.09.2003 and power under Section 11 of the Act 1894 was conferred upon the District Collectors. The State Government again created the post of Commissioners in all Revenue 10 Divisions w.e.f. 14.04.2008 vide Notification dated 03.12.2009, therefore, the approval was granted by the Commissioner Raipur Division. Further the Notifications issued on 08.08.2011 and 03.12.2009 were within the knowledge of the petitioners, but they did not challenge it before passing of award and thus, this ground is also not available to the petitioners. 14. Now coming to the next ground raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners with regard to Section 5(A) of the Act 1894, which deals with hearing of objections. In these batch of cases, the petitioner could not establish that they were not afforded opportunity of hearing. The State in its return has categorically stated that opportunity was afforded to the petitioners and the said fact has not been rebutted. 15. Admittedly, the petitioners have challenged the various notifications after passing of award, whereas those Notifications were issued way back in the year 2009 and 2011 and they failed to explain the reasons for such delay. 16. In the matter of Chinthamaneni Narasimha Rao (supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court in paragraphs no. 10 and 11 held as under:- 10. We see no reason for the land owners to wait for a few years for challenging the declaration made under Section 6 of the Act on the ground of delay. If the land owners had been really aggrieved, they ought to have challenged the proceedings immediately after declaration made under Section 6 of the Act. This Court has held in several judgments 11. that if the land owners are aggrieved by the acquisition proceedings, they must challenge the same at least before an award is made and the possession of the land in question is taken by the Government Authorities.