1 - Siyaram Agrawal S/o Late Hanuman Prasad Agarwal Aged About 80 Years R/o v. 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh And Ors. S/o Through The Secretary Mantralaya Mahanadi Bahwan
Case Details
Page 1 of 5 2025:CGHC:35767 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 1050 of 2015 1 - Siyaram Agrawal S/o Late Hanuman Prasad Agarwal Aged About 80 Years R/o Ramsgar Para Raipur Chhattisgarh , Chhattisgarh --- Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh And Ors. S/o Through The Secretary Mantralaya Mahanadi Bahwan, Naya Raipur Chhattisgarh , Chhattisgarh 2 - The Collector Land Acquisition Raipur Chhattisgarh , District : Chhattisgarh Raipur, 3 - The Sub Divisional Officer Cum Land Acquisition Officer Aarang, District Raipur Chhattisgarh , District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 4 - The New Raipur Development Authority Naya Raipur Through Its Chief Executive Officer Raipur Chhattisgarh, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh --- Respondent(s) WPC No. 1382 of 2015 1 - Harish Gandhi S/o Late Shobhalalji Gandhi Aged About 39 Years Resident Of Flat No. 62, Krishna Vatika, Vrindavan Appartment, Indra Nagar, Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh, Chhattisgarh ---Petitioner(s) Versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh S/o Through The Secretary, Mantralaya Mahanadi Bhawan, Naya Raipur Chhattisgarh, Chhattisgarh 2 - The Collector, Land Acquisition, Raipur Chhattisgarh, District : Page 2 of 5 Raipur, Chhattisgarh 3 - The Sub Divisional Officer Cum Land Acquisition Officer, Aarang, District Raipur Chhattisgarh, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 4 - The New Raipur Development Authority, Naya Raipur Through Its Chief Executive Officer, Raipur Chhattisgarh, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh ---- Respondents For Petitioners :
Legal Reasoning
Mr. Aniruddha Shrivastava on behalf of Mr. For State For NRDA : : Ankur Agrawal, Advocates. Mr. K.L. Sahu, Dy. Govt. Advocate Mr. Keshav Dewangan and Mr. Anuroop Panda, Advocates Hon'ble Shri Justice Narendra Kumar Vyas Order on Board 24.07.2025 1. Since, common question of law and facts are involved in both the writ petitions, they are heard and being disposed off by this common order. 2. The petitioners have filed present petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging award passed by the Sub- Divisional Officer and Land Acquisition Officer, Arang in land acquisition case No. 6-A/82 year 2011-12. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the quantum of compensation awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer is not satisfactory. He would further submit that the said compensation has been determined in view of Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 which has been vitiated in view of Page 3 of 5 the Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, therefore, the petitioners are entitled for higher compensation. 4. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents would submit that the award has already been passed and the compensation has already been deposited therefore, any rider contained in Section 24(2) of the Act, 2013 will not come in rescue of the petitioners, therefore, would pray for dismissal of the writ petitions. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 6. To determine the issue raised in the present writ petitions, it is expedient for this Court to extract relevant provisions of the Act, 2013 which is extracted below :- 24. Land Acquisition process under Act 1 of 1894 shall be deemed to have lapsed in certain cases - (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, in any case of land acquisition proceedings initiated under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894,-- (a) where no award under section 11 of the said Land Acquisition Act has been made, then, all provisions of this Act relating to the determination of compensation shall apply; or (b) where an award under said section 11 has been made, then such proceedings shall continue under the provisions of the said Land Acquisition Act, as if the said Act has not been repealed. (2) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1), in case of land acquisition proceedings initiated under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (1 of 1894), where an award under the said section 11 has been made five years or more prior to the Page 4 of 5 commencement of this Act but the physical possession of the land has not been taken or the compensation has not been paid the said proceedings shall be deemed to have lapsed and the appropriate Government, if it so chooses, shall initiate the proceedings of such land acquisition afresh in accordance with the provisions of this Act:- Provided that where an award has been made and compensation in respect of a majority of land holdings has not been deposited in the account of the beneficiaries, then, all beneficiaries specified in the notification for acquisition under section 4 of the said Land Acquisition Act, shall be entitled to compensation in accordance with the provisions of this Act.” *** *** 7. From perusal of the record it is quite vivid that the compensation has been deposited as well as the possession of the land has also been taken vide possession certificate dated 24.12.2013 issued by the Tahsildar. It is settled position of law that either possession or compensation has been paid then there would be no lapse. The issue with regard to lapsing of the Act of 1894 has been dealt with in detail by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Indore Development Authority vs. Manoharlal and Others {(2020) 8 SCC 129} and Hon’ble Supreme Court has held as under :- 366.7 The mode of taking possession under the Act of 1894 and as contemplated under Section 24(2) is by drawing of inquest report/ memorandum. Once award has been passed on taking possession under Section 16 of the Act of 1894, the land vests in State there is no divesting provided under Section 24(2) of the Act of 2013, as once possession has been taken there is no lapse under Section 24(2). 366.8 The provisions of Section 24(2) providing for a deemed lapse of proceedings are applicable in case authorities have failed due to their inaction to take possession and pay compensation for five years or more before the Act of 2013 came into force, in a proceeding for land acquisition pending with concerned authority as on 1.1.2014. The period of subsistence of interim orders passed by court has to be excluded in the computation of five years. Page 5 of 5 366.9 Section 24(2) of the Act of 2013 does not give rise to new cause of action to question the legality of concluded proceedings of land acquisition. Section 24 applies to a proceeding pending on the date of enforcement of the Act of 2013, i.e., 1.1.2014. It does not revive stale and time-barred claims and does not reopen concluded proceedings nor allow landowners to question the legality of mode of taking possession to reopen proceedings or mode of deposit of compensation in the treasury instead of court to invalidate acquisition. 8. Considering the facts of the case and law on the subject, it is quite vivid that the Act of 2013 came into force from 1 st January, 2014 and since the land of the petitioners has already been taken into possession on 24.12.2013, therefore, the petitioners will not get the benefit of rider of lapsing of Act of 1894. 9.
Decision
Accordingly, the writ petitions(c) are dismissed. However, liberty is granted to the petitioners to take recourse of law for enhancement of their compensation before appropriate forum. Sd/- (Narendra Kumar Vyas) Judge KISHORE KUMAR DESHMUKH Digitally signed by KISHORE KUMAR DESHMUKH Date: 2025.07.29 18:43:44 +0530 Deshmukh