Nafr High Court
Case Details
1 2025:CGHC:44366 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 3475 of 2025 1 - Bishamber Singh S/o Sobha Ram Aged About 52 Years R/o Village- Abhaypur, Tahsil- Premnagar, Distt- Surajpur (C.G.) 2 - Sukh Singh S/o Somar Sai Thakur Aged About 48 Years R/o Village- Chandannagar, Tahsil- Premnagar Distt- Surajpur (C.G.) 3 - Thakur Singh S/o Somar Sai Thakur Aged About 52 Years R/o Village- Chandannagar, Tahsil- Premnagar Distt- Surajpur (C.G.) 4 - Manmohan Yadav S/o Goverdhan Yadav Aged About 45 Years R/o Village- Raghunathpur, Tahsil- Premnagar, Distt- Surajpur (C.G) 5 - Santosh Kumar Sahu S/o Rambachan Aged About 40 Years R/o Village- Raghunathpur, Tahsil- Premnagar Distt- Surajpur (C.G.) 6 - Rambachan S/o Satyanarayan Aged About 61 Years R/o Village- Raghunathpur, Tahsil- Premnagar Distt- Surajpur (C.G.) --- Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of Industries Mahanadi Bhawan Atal Nagar Raipur Distt- Raipur (C.G.) 2 - The Secretary Department Of Revenue And Disaster Management, Mahanadi Bhawan Atal Nagar New- Raipur, Distt- Raipur (C.G.) 3 - Chhattisgarh Mineral Development Corporation Through The Managing Director Chhattisgarh Mineral Development Corporation Raipur, Distt- Raipur (C.G.) Digitally signed by JYOTI JHA Date: 2025.09.04 18:14:12 +0530 4 - The Collector Surajpur Distt- Surajpur (C.G) 5 - The Land Acquisition OfÏcer-Cum-Sub-Divisional-OfÏcer (Revenue) Surajpur Distt- Surajpur (C.G) 6 - The Tahsildar Premnagar Distt- Surajpur (C.G.) ----Respondents 2 WPC No. 3464 of 2025 1 - Kumar Singh S/o Raghunandan Singh Aged About 57 Years R/o Village- Mendra, Tahsil - Premnagar Distt.- Surajpur (C.G.) 2 - Thakur S/o Late Mahant Aged About 35 Years R/o Village- Mendra, Tahsil - Premnagar Distt.- Surajpur (C.G.) 3 - Bhuneshwar S/o Late Nanka Ram Aged About 36 Years R/o Village- Mendra, Tahsil - Premnagar Distt.- Surajpur (C.G.)
Legal Reasoning
4 - Smt. Purna Jaiswal W/o Birendra Jaiswal Aged About 48 Years R/o Village- Mendra, Tahsil - Premnagar Distt.- Surajpur (C.G.) 5 - Durga Prasad S/o Somaru Ahir Aged About 40 Years R/o Village- Mendra, Tahsil - Premnagar Distt.- Surajpur (C.G.) 6 - Raja Ram S/o Sumar Sai Aged About 45 Years R/o Village- Mendra, Tahsil - Premnagar Distt.- Surajpur (C.G.) 7 - Sukh Singh S/o Hawal Sai Aged About 47 Years R/o Village- Mendra, Tahsil - Premnagar Distt.- Surajpur (C.G.) --- Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through - The Secretary, Department Of Industries Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Raipur Distt.- Raipur (C.G.) 2 - The Secretary Department Of Revenue And Disaster Management, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, New Raipur, Distt.- Raipur (C.G.) 3 - Chhattisgarh Mineral Development Corporation Through The Managing Director Chhattisgarh Mineral Development Corporation Raipur, Distt.- Raipur (C.G.) 4 - The Collector Surajpur Distt.- Surajpur (C.G.) 5 - The Land Acquisition OfÏcer-Cum-Sub- Divisional OfÏcer (Revenue) Surajpur Distt.- Surajpur (C.G.) 6 - The Tahsildar Premnagar Distt.- Surajpur (C.G.) For Petitioner : For Respondent-State For Respondent-DSGI For Respondent-CMDC Mr. Shubham Tiwari, along with Mr. A. N. Pandey, Advocate Mr. R.S. Marhas, Addl. A.G. Ms. Anmol Sharma, CGC Mr. R.S. Patel, along with Mr. Ashish : : : Sahu Advocates 3 Hon’ble Shri Arvind Kumar Verma, Judge Order on Board 01/09/2025 1. The petitioners have filed these petitions seeking the following reliefs:- “10.1 That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to set aside the impugned order dated 09.01.2019 (Annexure P/1) passed by the respondent No. 5 10.2 That this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to set aside the entire acquisition proceeding initiated by the respondents in village- Kantaroli, Tahsil Premnagar District Surajpur (C.G.) in the interest of justice. 10.3 That this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent to calculate adequate and proper compensation and make payment along with interest at 15 % per annum, from the date of award, to the date of payment to the petitioners, complying with all provisions of rehabilitation policy and providing developed plots to the petitioners before dispossessing the petitioners from their properties, in the interest of justice. 10.4 That, any other relief/order which may deem fit and just in the facts and circumstances of the case including award of the costs of the petition may be given.” 2. The facts, in a nutshell, are that the Chhattisgarh Mineral Development Corporation Limited (CMDCL), Raipur, sent a proposal to the Collector, Surguja, for the acquisition of private lands under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short ‘the Act, 1894’), for the implementation and development of the Tara Coal Project. A direction was issued to initiate land acquisition proceedings for acquiring land 4 situated at Village Kantaroli, Mendra, Tara, Shivnagar and other village of Tehsil and District Surajpur. A notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 was published on 26.6.2009. On 7.7.2009, a public notice was issued inviting objections from the affected persons according to the provisions of Section 5A of the Act, 1894. On 12.8.2009, a notification under Section 6 of the Act, 1894, was issued and published in daily newspapers on 31.8.2009. On 19.3.2010, the State of Chhattisgarh issued a gazette notification regarding revising the compensation amount. Subsequently, a notification under Section 9(1) of the Act, 1894, was issued, and an award was passed by the Land Acquisition OfÏcer on 12.8.2011. The award was approved by the Commissioner, Ambikapur, Sarguja, on 30.9.2011. 3. The entire compensation amount was deposited by Adani Power Limited with the Land Acquisition OfÏcer. The mutation proceedings were initiated in favour of CMDCL, and the petitioners were compelled to hand over the possession of their lands. Adani Power Limited was allotted a coal block; however, the Hon’ble Supreme Court quashed the allotment vide order dated 25.8.2014 in W.P.(Crl) No. 120 of 2012 and other connected matters. The petitioners pleaded that, as the coal block allotment has already been quashed, the land acquisition proceedings are vitiated. 4. The petitioners have also stated that although the rate of compensation was revised by the State Government vide notification dated 19.3.2010, the Land Acquisition OfÏcer did not take this notification into consideration. Furthermore, the appropriate amount of solatium was not paid to the land oustees. The petitioners made representations before the respondent authorities on 6.2.2012, 3.9.2012, 12.11.2012 & 24.5.2013 seeking payment of adequate compensation. When no action was taken by the respondents, some petitioners filed WP(C) No.1183 of 2013 and vide order dated 12.8.2013, the District Collector was directed to take necessary steps. Some petitioners also filed Contempt Petition No.34 of 2014, following which the compensation was paid. It is pleaded that the compensation was paid after a delay of 2 – 3 years from the date of the award without any interest. The petitioners have referred to Section 28 of the Act, 1894, which deals 5 with the payment of interest. It is also pleaded that there was no urgency warranting the invocation of Section 5A of the Act, 1894. Additionally, it is pleaded that the Hon’ble Supreme Court, vide orders dated 25.8.2014 and 24.9.2014, cancelled the coal block allocations from 1993 to 31.3.2011, including those relating to CMDC and the Tara Coal Block. Respondent No. 5 vide order dated 9.1.2019, directed the Tehsildar, Premnagar, to initiate mutation16 proceedings pertaining to the acquired lands after a lapse of 8 years from the date of the award. It is also pleaded that this action violates Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (for short ‘the Act, 2013’). It is also pleaded that the respondents ought to have acquired the entire chunk of land at once, but the lands have been acquired in piecemeal without making payment of compensation. It is also pleaded that the compensation amount paid by Adani Power Limited to CMDCL has already been refunded to it after the cancellation of the coal block. In the alternative, the petitioners have sought direction to the respondents to calculate adequate and proper compensation and to make payment along with interest @15% per annum from the date of the award, i.e. 30.9.2011. 5. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would submit that respondent No.4 issued a direction to the Tehsildar to initiate mutation proceedings after a lapse of 8 years from the date of the award without assigning sufÏcient reasons. It is further submitted that the coal block allotment has already been quashed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court; therefore, the respondent/CMDC has no right or locus to acquire the land or initiate mutation proceedings. It is also submitted that the possession has not been taken over by respondent and therefore, the acquisition proceedings are vitiated. It is also argued that though the award was passed on 12.8.2011, the compensation was paid only after the intervention of this Court in September, 2014; therefore, the petitioners are entitled to 15% compound interest on the compensation amount. In support thereof, reliance has been placed on the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court rendered in the matters of Manohar Lal Sharma vs. Principal Secretary and others, (2014) 9 SCC 516 and 6 (2014) 9 SCC 614 and Kedar Nath Yadav vs. State of West Bengal and Others, (2017) 11 SCC 601. 6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State as well as learned counsel for respondent-CMDC would oppose the submissions made by counsel for the petitioners. They would submit that the award was passed on 12.8.2011, and it has been accepted by the petitioners. The amount of compensation was deposited by respondent-CMDC with the Land Acquisition OfÏcer immediately thereafter, and the petitioners accepted it in the month of September, 2014. It is further argued that the petitioners have not challenged the award dated 12.8.2011. He would further contend that although the Hon’ble Supreme Court has canceled the coal block allocation order, the land acquisition proceedings and the award passed on 12.8.2011 by the Land Acquisition OfÏcer are still in existence as the same have not been touched. He would also submit that the entire land was acquired in the name of respondent, and, if coal block allocation is canceled, it is for respondent-CMDC to utilise the land and allot it to another entity. 7. With regard provisions of Section 24(2) of the Act, 2013, he would submit that the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Indore Development Authority vs. Manoharlal and Others, (2020) 8 SCC 129, has clarified that there shall be no deemed lapse of acquisition proceedings once compensation has been paid and accepted by the land oustees. 8. With regard to the prayer made by the petitioners, learned State counsel would submit that the petitioners have neither pleaded any provision of law entitling them to receive such interest, nor have they adequately proved the negligence on the part of the respondent State. It is also argued that the petitioners may approach the competent authority in accordance with law to raise their grievance. He would submit that the petitions deserve to be dismissed. 9. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents present on the record. 10.In the present case, the lands of the petitioners and other land oustees were acquired according to the provisions of the Act, 1894, by 7 respondent No.3/CMDC and an award was passed on 12.8.2011. The petitioners accepted the amount of compensation in the month of September, 2014. The petitioners have filed these petitions on the grounds that the coal block allotment in favour of the Tara Coal Project was canceled by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Manohar Lal Sharma (supra), and mutation proceedings were initiated by the revenue authorities after a lapse of 8 years. The petitioners, in these petitions, have sought a direction to the respondents to pay adequate and proper compensation with interest @ 15% from the date of the award, and thus, the petitioners have sought reliefs. 11.Admittedly, the lands were acquired by respondent-CMDC for the development of the Tara Coal Project and the coal block was allotted to Adani Power Limited. Initially, the amount of compensation was deposited by the said company with the Land Acquisition OfÏcer; however, the allocation of coal blocks was canceled by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the above-stated matters, and consequently, the compensation amount was refunded to the said company. The order in Manohar Lal Sharma (supra) was passed on 25.8.2014, whereas the award was passed by the Land Acquisition OfÏcer on 12.8.2011, and approved by the Commissioner, Ambikapur, on 30.9.2011. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Manohar Lal Sharma (supra), (2014) 9 SCC 516, in paras 162.8 & 162.9, held as follows:- 20 “162.8. However, almost after 22 years, vide Circular dated 12.12.2001, the Central Government, reviewing its earlier policy, allowed the State Government companies or undertakings to do mining of coking and non-coking coal or lignite reserves either by opencast or underground method, anywhere in the country, subject to the conditions set out therein. Under the revised policy, the State Government company/undertaking was permitted to mine non-coking coal and coking coal reserves or lignite by opencast/underground 8 method without the restriction of “isolated small pockets”. 162.9. Having carefully examined the Circular dated 12.12.2001, in light of the provisions of the CMN Act, as amended in 1976, it appears to us that the circular is not in conformity with the provisions of the CMN Act and, consequently, has no legal sanction. CMN Act and further amendments therein carried out in 1976 do not allow State Government or State PSUs to mine coal for commercial use. The problem seems to have arisen because of the 2001 circular which permits the State Government companies or undertakings to do mining of coking and non-coking coal reserves but, as noted above, the legislative policy in the CMN Act does not permit that. The recommendation for allocation by the Screening Committee to the State PSUs and also the allocation made to the State PSUs through Government dispensation route are, therefore, in violation of the provisions of the CMN Act, as amended from time to time.” 12.In the matter of Manohar Lal Sharma, (2014) 9 SCC 614, (supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court held in para 32, as under:- “32. As far as the first category of coal block allotments is concerned, they must be cancelled (except those mentioned in the judgment). There is no reason to “save” them from cancellation. The allocations are illegal and arbitrary; the allottees have not yet entered into any mining lease and they have not yet commenced production. Whether they are 95% ready or 92% ready or 90% ready for production (as argued by some learned counsel) is wholly irrelevant. Their allocation was illegal and arbitrary, as already held, and therefore we quash 9 all these allotments.” 13.A bare reading of the above-quoted passage would make it clear that the coal blocks were allocated in an arbitrary and illegal manner, in contravention of the provisions of law; therefore, the Hon’ble Supreme Court canceled the first category of coal block allotments. The judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court would show that the land acquisition proceedings and awards passed were not touched. 14.The petitioners, in these petitions, have not challenged the award passed by the Land Acquisition OfÏcer dated 12.8.2011; rather, they have sought a direction to the respondent authorities to make payment of adequate and proper compensation with interest @ 15%. The petitioners have claimed proper compensation; therefore, their contention with regard to Section 5A of the Act, 1894, would not be maintainable. They are not firm on their stand with regard to Section 5A of the Act, 1894. 15.With regard to provisions of Section 24 of the Act, 2013, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Indore Development Authority (supra), in para 366.3, held that the word “or” used in Section 24(2) between possession and compensation has to be read as “nor” or as “and”. It is held that the deemed lapse of land acquisition proceedings under Section 24(2) of the Act, 2013, takes place where, due to inaction of the authorities for five years or more prior to the commencement of the said Act, the possession of land has not been taken or compensation has not been paid. In other words, in case the possession has been taken but compensation has not been paid, then there is no lapse. Similarly, if compensation has been paid, possession has not been taken, then there is also no lapse. Para 366.3 reads thus: “366.3. The word ‘or’ used in Section 24(2) between possession and compensation has to be read as ‘nor’ or as ‘and’. The deemed lapse of land acquisition proceedings under Section 24(2) of the Act of 2013 takes place where due to inaction of authorities for five years or more prior to commencement of the said Act, the possession of land has not been taken nor compensation has been paid. In other words, in 10 case possession has been taken, compensation has not been paid then there is no lapse. Similarly, if compensation has been paid, possession has not been taken then there is no lapse.” 16.In the present case, the compensation was paid to the petitioners, and it was accepted by them and this fact has been pleaded by the petitioners in writ petitions; therefore, according to the provisions of Section 24(2) of the Act, 2013, the acquisition proceedings would not lapse. 17.The award was passed in accordance with the provisions of the Act, 1894, and thereafter, compensation amounting to Rs.113,40,59,363/- was deposited with the Land Acquisition OfÏcer through the Collector, Surajpur on 26.11.2013. Thus, the right accrued in favour of respondent No.3. Respondent No.3 approached the authorities for mutation and accordingly, a direction was issued in the month of January 2019 by respondent No. 3 to initiate mutation proceedings. Further, the petitioners could not prove that they are still in possession of the acquired property. 18.Taking into consideration the above-discussed facts and the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the above-referred cases, no case is made out for interference. 19.Accordingly, these petitions are dismissed. However, the petitioners would be at liberty to approach the appropriate authority claiming therein adequate compensation with interest, if so advised. Sd/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) Judge Jyoti