1 - Anand Kumar Chandrakar S/o Rohit Kumar Aged About 43 Years R/o Village v. 1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary Department of Revenue And D
Case Details
1 / 6 2025:CGHC:23037 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 3223 of 2022 1 - Anand Kumar Chandrakar S/o Rohit Kumar Aged About 43 Years R/o Village Kodia, Post Pauwara, Tehsil And District Durg Chhattisgarh. 2 - Smt. Laxmi Chandrakar, W/o Anand Kumar Chandrakar, Aged About 40 Years R/o Village Kodia, Post Pauwara, Tehsil And District Durg Chhattisgarh. 3 - Vivek Kumar Chandrakar, S/o Rohit Kumar, Aged About 42 Years R/o Village Kodia, Post Pauwara, Tehsil And District Durg Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioners versus 1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary Department of Revenue And Disaster Management Mantralay Mahanadi Bhavan Nava Raipur Chhattisgarh. 2 - State of Chhattisgarh, Through Secretary Department Of Public Work Mantralaya Mahanadi Bhavan Nava Raipur Chhattisgarh. 3 - Collector Durg District Durg Chhattisgarh. 4 - Sub Divisional Officer, Public Work Department Sub Division No.-01, Near Five Building Durg, Tehsil And District Durg Chhattisgarh. ... Respondents For Petitioners For State : :
Legal Reasoning
Mr. R.K. Gomasta, Advocate Ms. Upasana Mehta, Dy. GA (Hon’ble Shri Justice Arvind Kumar Verma) Order on Board 11/06/2025 ASHUTOSH MISHRA Digitally signed by ASHUTOSH MISHRA Date: 2025.06.13 16:17:52 +0530 2 / 6 1. By way of the instant petition, the petitioners are seeking direction to the respondent authorities to award fair compensation to the petitioners against the unauthorized occupation on the private agricultural land of the petitioners situated at Village Kodia, Post- Pauwara, Tehsil & District Durg, C.G., done by Respondent No.4 PWD for the construction of Public Road without any notice and without any compensation to the petitioners. 2. The brief facts of the case as projected by the petitioners are that the petitioners are farmers and they earn livelihood by cultivation on their agriculture land, the petitioner no.-1, having the agricultural land bearing khasara no. 156, area about 0.270 hectare, similarly the petitioner no. 2 having the land bearing khasara no. 300, 301, area about 0.26 and 0.32, hectare and the petitioner no. 3 having the land bearing khasara no. 155, area about 0.020 hectare situated at PH no. 38 of revenue circle Anda, Tehsil & District-Durg (C.G.). The public work department respondent no.-4 has constructed the road on 125 meter and drainage canal in 284 meter in the east direction of the land of the petitioner no.-1 and similarly the road has been constructed on the land area about 0.10 ha, the canal on the 0.04 ha over the land of the petitioner no.-2 and in the some portion in the east direction of the land bearing khasara no 155, the road and canal has been constructed on the land of the petitioner no.-3. The above fact came to the knowledge of the petitioner no.-1, when the demarcation was done of the land on 08/04/2022, similarly the petitioner no.-2 has done demarcation on 30/05/2020, where they 3 / 6 find that construction is being done on the some portion of their land. When the petitioner came to know that road and canal is being constructed on their own agricultural field by the respondent no.-4 they personally met to the respondent authorities to redress their grievances but no action was taken by the authorities so that the petitioner wrote a letter to the respondent no.-4 on 04/01/2021 to inquire about the above fact regarding their grievance and prayed for proper compensation of the land occupied for the construction of the road and canal by the department. Despite the oral and written request made by the petitioners regarding their grievance before the respondent authorities, no positive response was given by the respondent authorities; therefore a legal notice was served to the respondent no. 3 and respondent no.-4 by the petitioner through the counsel on 02/06/2022, but the grievance of the petitioners are not redressed by the respondent authorities. Hence this petition. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners would contend that the petitioners are village farmers and they earn livelihood from the earning on the agriculture land and therefore they suffered economic loss out of the act of the respondent authorities. He would next contend that no prior notice was served to the petitioners before construction of canal and road on the private agricultural land of the petitioners by the respondent authorities which is gross violation of law of natural justice. He would next contend that the respondent authorities are not acting as per the law by acquiring the land and awarding compensation to the petitioners before the construction of 4 / 6 public road and canal on the land of the petitioner. He would lastly contend that the panchnama of the demarcation report (Annexure- P/2) by the revenue inspector revenue circle Village Anda, Tehsil and District Durg, C.G. of the land of the petitioner shows that the road and canal are found on the some portion of the land of the petitioner.. 4. Per contra, learned State counsel would submit that canal and road has been constructed on the pathway which was existing since 1977- 78 and subsequently the same was concretized and no new construction nor any acquisition has been made by the State authorities. She would next contend that though earlier there was a proposal for road widening and construction of drain, however, looking to the objections received from the villagers the same has also been canceled. Therefore, the petitioner is not entitled for any compensation and the instant petition deserves to be dismissed. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents. 6. Perusal of the return filed by the State counsel would show that earlier in the year 1977-78 a temporary road was constructed with the consent of the villagers under the relief work as per their requirement for their right of easement which was subsequently in the year 2002-03 laid stones to strengthen the said pathway and only subsequent thereto the same was concretized in large public interest. At no point of time the said land was ever acquired and as per the information received from concerned Gram Panchayat the said 5 / 6 pathway came into existence with the consent of the villagers and local people. At no point of time any of the villagers original land owners or the petitioners have ever made any objection in initial construction of the said road/ pathway under the relief work as the same was with the consent of the then owners of the said property. 7. In Section 135 (2) of the CGLRC, 1959 it has been specifically provided that any person claiming any interest in the land which is used for the purpose of providing a road may be within a period one year make an application to the Collector for compensation in respect of his interest. 8. Admittedly, in the present case no such application was ever filed by any of the owners of the land when in the year 1977-78 the said road came into existence at that time the petitioners or the earlier recorded land owners have never demanded any compensation at the earlier point of time and with their free will allowed the pathway/road to get constructed and as of now after more than 40 years they cannot turn around and claim compensation. 9. At this juncture, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that earlier in the year 2022, the petitioners have made a representation before the respondents Nos.2 & 3 but till date the same has not been decided, therefore, the concerned respondent may be directed to decide the representation of the petitioner. 6 / 6 10. Learned State counsel submits that they are ready to decide the representation of the petitioner.
Decision
11. Accordingly, the instant writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondent authorities to decide the pending representation of the petitioners. 12. It is made clear that the respondent authorities shall not be influenced by the observation made by this Court and they shall decide the representation of the petitioners in accordance with law. SD/SDSD/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) JUDGE ashu