Jagatram vs State Of Chhattisgarh
2021 Latest Caselaw 3130 Chatt

                                   -1-


                                                                      NAFR
       HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
                        WPC No. 4521 of 2021
1. Bhakku S/o Thuru, Aged About 65 Years, R/o Village Barhaguda, Tehsil
   Dabhra, District Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh., District : Janjgir-
   Champa, Chhattisgarh
2. Bandhan S/o Ronsay, Aged About 49 Years, R/o Village Barhaguda,
   Tehsil Dabhra, District Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh., District : Janjgir-
   Champa, Chhattisgarh
                                                             ---- Petitioners
                                Versus
1. State Of Chhattisgarh, Through Secretary, Department of Revenue and
   Disaster Management, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan Raipur, District
   Raipur Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh
2. State of Chhattisgarh, Through Secretary, Department of Water
   Resource, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan Raipur, District Raipur,
   Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh
3. Collector Janjgir-Champa, District Janjgir-Champa,         Chhattisgarh.,
   District : Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh
4. Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue) Dabhra, District Janjgir-Champa
   Chhattisgarh., District : Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh
                                                          ---- Respondents

WPC No. 4590 of 2021

1. Jagatram S/o Bodhram, Aged About 61 Years, Resident of Village Bilaigadh, Tehsil Dabhra, District Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh., District : Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh

2. Bhuru S/o Nanhuram Kewat, Aged About 61 Years, Resident of Village Bilaigadh, Tehsil Dabhra, District Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh.

3. Bihari S/o Puniram Kewat, Aged About 51 Years, Resident of Village Bilaigadh, Tehsil Dabhra, District Janjgir-Champa Chhattisgarh.

4. Ramshila Wd/o Ramgopal, Aged About 48 Years, Resident of Village Bilaigadh, Tehsil Dabhra, District Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh.

5. Jhanakram S/o Bodhram Kewat, Aged About 51 Years, Resident of Village Bilaigadh, Tehsil Dabhra, District Janjgir-Champa Chhattisgarh.

6. Nirsundar S/o Bhagatram, Aged About 65 Years, Resident of Village Bilaigadh, Tehsil Dabhra, District Janjgir-Champa Chhattisgarh.

---- Petitioners Versus

1. State Of Chhattisgarh, Through Secretary, Department of Revenue and Disaster Management, Mantralaya Mahanadi Bhawan Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh

2. State of Chhattisgarh, Through Secretary, Department of Water Resource, Mantralaya Mahanadi Bhawan Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh.

3. Collector Janjgir-Champa, District Janjgir-Champa Chhattisgarh.

4. Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue) Dabhra, District Janjgir-Champa

Chhattisgarh.

5. Executive Engineer, Water Resource Division Raigarh, District Raigarh Chhattisgarh.

---- Respondents

For Petitioners - Mr. Surfaraj Khan and Mr. Kamal Kishore Patel, Advocates (in WPC No.4590 of 2021), Mr. T.K. Jha, Advocate (in WPC No.4521 of 2021). For State-respondents - Mr. S.C. Verma, Advocate General, Mr. Chandresh Shrivastava, Deputy Advocate General and Ms. Sameeksha Gupta, Panel Lawyer.

Hon'ble Shri Justice Rajendra Chandra Singh Samant Order on Board 15-11-2021

1. It is submitted that the petitioners in both the cases are recorded owners

of the land which was acquired by the respondents for construction of Kalma

Barrage. The compensation has been determined by respondent No.4 and

awards have been passed by order dated 02-06-2021 and by order dated 28-

01-2021. The petitioners in both the cases have grievance that in the passing

the impugned awards respondent No.4 has committed mistake which is in the

matter of error in calculation of compensation. Section 33 of the Right to Fair

Compensation & Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation &

Resettlement Act, 2013 (in short 'the Act, 2013') empowers the respondent

No.4 to correct any clerical or arithmetical mistake. The petitioners filed

representations praying to amend the award which are pending without any

decision. In similar cases the Land Acquisition Officers of other districts have

passed the amended award and granted relief to the persons affected.

Reliance has been placed on the judgment of Gujarat High Court in the matter

of Rajput Chhagguji Modiaji Vs. Special Land Acquisition Officer [in

R/First Appeal No.2123 of 2018, decided on 13/08/2018] and also on the

judgment of Delhi High Court in the case of Union of India Vs Om Prakash

and others [ in CM(M) 1139/2016 & CM Nos.41958-41959/2016 and batch of

other petitions, decided on 11-11-2016]. It is submitted that although the

provision under Section 64 of the Act, 2013 provides for making reference to

the Collector, but in the provision under Section 63 of the Act, 2013 it is clearly

provided that in the matter of dispute relating to land acquisition the High Court

shall have jurisdiction under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India or

the Supreme Court shall have jurisdiction to entertain the dispute. Therefore,

present petitions have been preferred before this Court.

2. It is submitted that there is requirement of strict compliance of Section

31 of the Act, 2013 which has not been made by respondent No.4 in the

impugned award. Hence, the petitions be dispose off with direction.

3. The State counsel appearing for the respondents opposes the

submission and submits that once the award has been passed by the Land

Acquisition Officer a notice is given to the person interested and the award of

compensation is uploaded in the website, the award becomes final. Therefore,

that cannot be amended. It is submitted that the representations filed by the

petitioners in both the cases are in fact for seeking recall of the earlier award

granting compensation. Section 33 of the Act, 2013 can be invoked only for a

limited purpose to correct any clerical or arithmetical mistake. This provision

does not empower review of the earlier order. It is submitted that in such a

case the petitioner have remedy available to file application under Section

64(2) of the Act, 2013. It is further submitted that in the case of Rajput

Chhagguji Modiaji Vs. Special Land Acquisition Officer (supra) the High

Court of Gujarat has referred to the provisions of Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (in

short 'the Act, 1894'), in which Section 13A is now Section 33 of the new Act

and Section 18 of the Act, 1894 is now Section 64 of the Act, 2013 which

provides for reference to Collector. The High Court of Gujarat has clearly

expressed that Section 13A of the Act, 1894 provides only for correction of

clerical or arithmetical mistake and does not empower to modify the award.

Therefore, the petitions are not maintainable.

4. In reply it is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners that prayer

of the petitioners is only for direction to the concerned to decide their

representations which may be decided in accordance with law.

5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents.

6. Considered on the submissions. In the case of Union of India Vs. Om

Prakash and others (supra), Delhi High Court has observed in paragraph 10

as follows:-

10. The other contention raised by the petitioner is that the Reference Court cannot direct the petitioner to modify the award and correct the statement under Section 19 of the Acquisition Act contrary to the Award. In this context reference may be had to the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Chimanlal Hargovinddas vs. Special Land Acquisition Officer, AIR 1988 SC 1652 wherein the Supreme Court held as follows:-

"4. The following factors must be etched on the mental screen: (1) A reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act is not an appeal against the award and the Court cannot take into account the material relied upon by the Land Acquisition Officer in his Award unless the same material is produced and proved before the Court. (2) So also the Award of the Land Acquisition Officer is not to be treated as a judgment of the trial Court open or exposed to challenge before the Court hearing the Reference. It is merely an offer made by the Land Acquisition Officer and the material utilised by him for making his valuation cannot be utilised by the Court unless produced and proved before it. It is not the function of the Court to suit in appeal against the Award, approve or disapprove its reasoning, or correct its error or affirm, modify or reverse the conclusion reached by the Land Acquisition Officer, as if it were an appellate Court.

(3) The Court has to treat the reference as an original proceeding before it and determine the market value afresh on the basis of the material produced before it.

(4) The claimant is in the position of a plaintiff who has to show that the price offered for his land in the award is inadequate on the basis of the materials produced in the Court. Of course the materials placed and proved by the other side can also be taken into account for this purpose. (5) The market value of land under acquisition has to be determined as on the crucial date of publication of the notification under Section 4 of

the Land Acquisition Act (dates of Notifications under Sections. 6 and 9 are irrelevant).

......."

7. Under Section 18 of the Act, 1894 the reference was to be made to the

Principal Court of civil jurisdiction in which objections on decision were

regarding measurement of land, the amount of the compensation or the

apportionment of the compensation, which now has been replaced by Section

64 of the Act, 2013 and now the authority to decide the reference is Collector.

The objections for decision in the reference under Section 64 of the Act, 2013

are similar.

Copy of representations made by the petitioners have been filed in both

the cases and on perusal of the same, it is found that the petitioners have

pointed out the mistakes that the calculation of compensation has not been

made in accordance with the Chhattisgarh Rajya ki Aadarsh Punarwas Neeti

2007, but decision on this objection of the petitioners cannot be taken by

respondent No.4 within the limitation of Section 33 of the Act, 2013 as the

representations simply makes a prayer for recall and review of the order

passed by respondent No.4. Hence, on the basis of this discussion both the

petitions are disposed off at motion stage. The petitioners in both the cases are

granted liberty to file reference under Section 64(2) of the Act, 2013. As there is

limitation provided for filing such reference, therefore, the petitioners are also

granted liberty to file application for condonation of delay in filing the reference.

Respondent No.3 is directed to consider on the reference application and on

the application for condonation of delay filed in accordance with law and also

for taking into consideration the Chhatttisgarh Rajya ki Aadarsh Punarwas

Neeti 2007 and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law. With these

observations, both the petitions are disposed off.

Sd/-

(Rajendra Chandra Singh Samant) Judge Aadil