Chattisgarh High Court
State Of Chhattisgarh vs Smt. Shakuntala Devi on 21 October, 2021
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
Order Sheet
W.P.(C) No. 4184 of 2021
1. State of Chhattisgarh, Through : the Secretary, Department of Water
Resources, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur
Chhattisgarh.
(Petitioner No.1 was not a party in the proceeding but has been impleaded as
petitioner No.1 herein as it is necessary to implead the State Government
through the Secretary of concerned Department.
2. The Executive Engineer Water Resources Division, Raigarh District Raipur
Chhattisgarh.
---- Petitioners
Versus
Smt. Shakuntala Devi, W/o. Bharat Lal, aged about 56 years, R/o. Sariya, Tehsil
Baramkela, District Raigarh Chhattisgarh.
---- Respondents
Mr. Sudeep Agrawal, Dy.A.G. Counsel for the petitioners.
21/10/2021
Mr. T.K. Jha, Counsel for the respondent.
Heard on I.A. No.1, application for grant of interim relief.
It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the
land of the respondent was acquisitioned for construction of Kalma
Barrage. The Competent Authority/SDO Revenue determined the
award to the tune of Rs.35,39,217.92, which was accepted by the
respondent without any protest or raising any objection. Subsequent to
that, respondent filed an application, before the Sub-Divisional Officer-
cum-Land Acquisition Officer, Dabhara praying for enhancement of
the compensation amount under the provisions of Right to Fair
Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation
and Resettlement Act, 2013 (In short 'the Act, 2013'). The respondent
then preferred a petition W.P.(C) No.1253 of 2020, before this Court,
which was disposed off by order dated 22.06.2020 directing the
Collector, Janjgir-Champa and S.D.O. (Revenue) Dabhara to decide
the application of the respondent in accordance with Section 33 of the
Act, 2013. S.D.O.-cum-Land Acquisition Officer, Dabhara has by order
dated 17.12.2020 enhanced the amount of compensation amount to
Rs.2,06,29,409.00.
This petition has been brought challenging this award on the
ground that it has been erroneously determined. The petitioner was
not given any reasonable opportunity, before passing of the award. It
is submitted that the procedure followed in the present case is against
the provisions of law. If The respondent in case was not satisfied with
the initial award of the compensation in that case, she could have
made a reference under Section 64 of the Act, 2013. Further, the
order of enhancement of compensation could not have been passed
by the same authority, who has passed the initial award. Hence, the
impugned award is unsustainable.
Learned counsel for the petitioner opposes the submissions
made and it is submitted that the respondent had received the
compensation amount according to the initial award under protest. In
the initial award the petitioners were granted opportunity for hearing.
The present petition has been filed suppressing the actual facts of the
case. Reliance has been placed on the judgment of High Court of
Delhi in Case No. CM(M) 1130/2016 & CM Nos. 41958-41959/2016
and other connected matters decided on 11.11.2016.
Considered on the submissions. Taking into consideration, the
specific provision under Section 64 of the Act, 2013, this Court is of
the view that this application for grant of interim relief should be
allowed on temporary basis. Hence, this application is allowed. It is
ordered that the effect and operation of the impugned order dated
17.12.2020, passed by the S.D.O. (Revenue)-cum- Land Acquisition
Officer, Dabhara shall remain stayed, till the next date of hearing.
List this case after four weeks.
In the meanwhile, the respondent counsel may file reply.
Sd/-
(Rajendra Chandra Singh Samant)
Judge
balram
