1 - Mithai Lal Rathia S/o Rajaram Rathia Aged About 65 Years R/o Village v. 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Its Secretary, Department Of Commerce And Industry Udyog
Case Details
1 2025:CGHC:35757 AFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 3868 of 2025 1 - Mithai Lal Rathia S/o Rajaram Rathia Aged About 65 Years R/o Village- Patrapali East Block And District- Raigarh (C.G.) 2 - Vaidram Gadtiya S/o Raghunath Gadtiya Aged About 52 Years R/o Village- Patrapali East, Block And District- Raigarh (C.G.) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Its Secretary, Department Of Commerce And Industry Udyog Bhavan, Ring Road No. -1, Telibandha, District- Raipur (C.G.) 2 - Chhattisgarh State Industrial Development Corporation Limited (C.S.I.D.C.) Through Its Managing Director, First Floor, Udyog Bhavan, Ring Road No. - 1, Telibandha, District- Raipur (C.G.) 3 - Executive Director Chhattisgarh State Industrial Development Corporation
Legal Reasoning
Limited First Floor, Udyog Bhavan, Ring Road No.- 1, Telibandha, District- Raipur (C.G.) 4 - Collector District- Raigarh (C.G.) 5 - Sub-Divisional OfÏcer/land Acquisition OfÏcer District-Raigarh (C.G.)
Legal Reasoning
6 - M/s Bpa Metallics Pvt. Ltd. Through Director, House No. 11, Shristi Garden Ring, Road No. 1, Telibanda, District- Raipur, (C.G.) 7 - Visa Steel Limited Through Its Director, Visa House 11, Ekamra Kanan, Nayapalli, Distt.- Bhubaneshwar, Odisha. ----Respondents (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner For Respondent No. 1,4 & 5 For Respondent No. 2 & 3 For Respondent No. 6 : Mr. Mateen Siddiqui, Advocate : Mr. Praveen Das, Dy. G.A. : Mr. Animesh Tiwari, Advocate : Mr. Manoj Paranjpe, along with Mr. Shakti Raj Sinha, Advocate Hon’ble Shri Arvind Kumar Verma, Judge Order on Board 2 24/07/2025 1. The present writ petition has been filed seeking following relief(s);- 10.1) That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash and set/aside the impugned lease deed executed on 07.02.2024 between the Chhattisgarh State Industrial Development Corporation Ltd (CSIDCL) and M/s BPA Metallics Private Limited (Annexure P-1). 10.2 This Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash and set aside the impugned allotment order dated 07.02.2024 issued by the Executive Director, Chhattisgarh State Industrial Development Corporation Ltd. (CSIDCL) in favour of M/s BPA Metallics Private Limited (Annexure P/2). 10.3 That this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent State & respondent CSIDC to return the land of the petitioners which were acquired in the year 2005. 10.4 Any other relief or relief(s) which this Hon’ble Court may think proper in view of the facts and circumstances of the case may also kindly be granted. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in the year 2005, it was proposed by the District Trade and Industry Centre for acquisition of some portions of land admeasuring to 65.11 hectares at village Patrapali, Block and District-Raigarh for the purpose of construction of captive power plant. After the acquisition, such land was allotted to Visa Steel Limited. In pursuant to such land acquisition proposal all the proceedings under the Land Acquisition Act 1984 completed and subsequently an award dated 10.10.2005 was passed by the Land Acquisition OfÏcer/ Sub-Divisional OfÏcer Block- Raigarh, District-Raigarh. That the name of Petitioner no. 1 is at serial no. 28 & name of petitioner no. 2 is at serial no. 23 of the aforesaid award. 3 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Visa Steel Limited which was allotted these lands by the Chhattisgarh State Industrial Development Corporation Limited on lease for setting up an captive power plant and commencing commercial production, however it failed to establish the power plant within stipulated time and as a result the allotment was cancelled by an order dated 29.06.2022. In the year 2023 the private respondent no.6 i.e. M/s BPA Metallics Pvt. Ltd. made a proposal to the State Investment Promotion Board for establishment of an integrated steel/power plant at Gram Patrapali and Kotmar, Block and District-Raigarh. It is pertinent to mention here that the lands which were proposed were the same lands which was acquired by the State Government from the petitioners in the year 2005 and were allotted to Visa Steel Pvt. Ltd. In pursuant to the request made by the private respondent no. 6, the Chhattisgarh State Industrial Development Corporation Ltd. arbitrarily granted on lease approximately 61.415 hectares (151.756 acres) of land located in Villages Patrapali and Kotmar, Tehsil and District Raigarh, for a term of 99 years, commencing from 07.02.2024, for the purpose of establishing an industrial enterprise by executing the impugned lease deed dated 07.02.2024. The Lease Deed was executed on 07.02.2024 between the Executive Director, Chhattisgarh State Industrial Development Corporation Ltd. (CSIDCL), as Lessor, and M/s BPA Metallics Private Limited, through its Director Harbilas Agarwal, as Lessee. 4 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in pursuant to the aforesaid lease deed, the respondent authority in the most unlawful manner has issued the impugned allotment order dated 07.02.2024 whereby the land has been allotted to the private respondent no.6 admeasuring 61.415 hectares at village Patrapali and Kotmar, Block & District- Raigarh. It is pertinent to note that, pursuant to the cancellation, the Visa Steel Limited submitted representation under the applicable agreement clauses, seeking reconsideration. The superior authority, after due consideration, suspended the cancellation order and granted them an extension of six months to commence construction and production. However, this extension order was never communicated to them. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that a representation dated 02.06.2025 was made by the petitioners to the Land Acquisition OfÏcer, District OfÏce Raigarh being aggrieved by the action of the respondent authority of allotting their lands to the private respondent No. 6 instead of returning the land back to the petitioner as the purpose for which the land was acquired initially in the year 2005 was failed and didn’t fulfill by the allottee of that time (Visa Steel Pvt. Ltd.). 6. Lastly learned counsel for the petitioner submits that Section 101 of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act 2013 specifically stipulates that any land which has been acquired under the Act of 2013 having remained unutilized for a period exceeding five years 5 from the date of acquisition/taking over of the possession, is liable to be returned to the original owners or their legal heirs; The respondent authority miserably failed to comply with the aforesaid provision of the Act of 2013 and acted in a contrary manner by allotting the land to the private respondent No. 6 (M/s BPA Metallics Pvt. Ltd) Relevant portion of Section 101 is quoted below for ready reference. 101 Return of unutilized land- when any land acquired under this Act remains unutilised for a period of five years from the date of taking over the possession, the same shall be returned to the original owner or owners or their legal heirs, as the case may be, or to the Land Bank of the appropriate Government by reversion in the manner as may be prescribed by the appropriate government. 7. Learned counsel for respondent No. 6 submits that learned counsel for the petitioner referred the section 101 which is of Act of 2013 and the land was acquired under the Act of 1894 vide award dated 07.10.2005. So far as Act of 1894 is concerned, there was no such provision to grant the relief as claimed by the petitioner. 8. Learned counsel for the respondent No 6 further submits that If the entire pleadings in the petition would have been seen, it transpires the fact that the petitioner has challenged the allotment order which was made in favour of the respondent No. 6 and he is 6 claiming, that allotment order should have been cancelled. However, the petitioner is the land oustee who has accepted the compensation in the year 2005 and he petitioner cannot claim that he should have been restituted after accepting the compensation and cannot seek the cancellation of the lease deed executed in favour of respondent No. 6. The petitioner has come after a lapse of 20 years from the date, the award was passed, therefore this petition would not be maintainable 9. Learned counsel for the respondent No. 6 further submits that the relief sought by the petitioner is that since the land has not been used, the land should have returned to the land oustee. In this regard, it is well settled law that once the land acquisition proceedings have been culminated in the final award and the award has been passed under the Act of 1894, it is automatically vested with the government. 10. In support of his contention, learned counsel for the petitioner placed his reliance upon a catena of decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Northern Indian Glass Industries Vs. Jaswant Singh and Other reported in 2003(1) SCC 335, C. Padma and Others Vs. Dy. Secretary to the Govt. of T.N. and others reported in (1997) 2 SCC 627, Haryana State Handloom & Handicrafts Vs. Jain School Society reported in (2003) 12 SCC 538. 11. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the judgments cited 7 by the petitioner would not be applicable in the present case and the delay and laches would not come in the present case because the present writ petition has been filed against the impugned allotment order dated 07.02.2024, whereby the land has been allotted to the respondent No. 6. 12. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 13. On perusal of the records, it is admitted fact that on 07.10.2005, the award was passed under the Land Acquisition Act 1894 and in the year 2005 the compensation has already been given to the land oustee and Section 101 of Act 2013 would not be applicable because the award has been passed under the Act 1894. Moreover, from the date of award i.e. 07.10.2005, 20 years have been lapsed. As such this Court is of the considered view that the land has already been vested with the State Government and the lease deed has been executed in favour of the respondent No. 6 on 06.11.2023 and the construction has been started over the said land, therefore I am not inclined to entertain the present writ petition. 14. Accordingly, the present writ petition stands dismissed. (Arvind Kumar Verma) Judge Sd/- Jyoti