State Of Chhattisgarh vs Ishwar Das Lodhi
2022 Latest Caselaw 3125 Chatt

                                                                                               NAFR

                   HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

                               First Appeal (M) No.95 of 2014

                           Judgment Reserved on :               7.3.2022
                           Judgment Delivered on :            29.4.2022

State of Chhattisgarh through Executive Engineer, Water Resources Division,
Rajnandgaon, District Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh
                                                               ---- Appellant
                                   versus
Ishwar Das Lodhi, S/o Sipar Ram Lodhi, R/o Village Puraina, P.H. No.8,
Tahsil Dongargarh, District Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh
                                                            --- Respondent

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

For Appellant : Shri Vimlesh Bajpai, Government Advocate For Respondent : Shri Pallav Mishra, Advocate

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Hon'ble Shri Justice Arvind Singh Chandel

C.A.V. JUDGMENT

1. This appeal has been preferred under Section 54 of the Land

Acquisition Act, 1894 (henceforth 'the Act') being aggrieved by the

order/award dated 6.1.2014 passed by the Court of Additional

District Judge, Khairagarh, Link Court Dongargarh, District

Rajnandgaon in Miscellaneous Civil Suit No.15 of 2007.

2. Facts of the case are that a land of the Respondent bearing Khasra

No.512 area 1.66 acres situated at Village Puraina, Tahsil

Dongargarh, District Rajnandgaon was compulsorily acquired by

the Appellant for construction of a canal under the provisions of the

Act. The notification under Section 4 of the Act was published on

7.2.2003 and the notification under Section 6 of the Act was issued

on 6.6.2003 and later on the award with regard to the

compensation was passed on 19.1.2004 vide Annexure A2. The

Respondent without any protest received the compensation on

3.2.2004. Thereafter, the Respondent filed a reference under

Sections 5 and 8 of the Act before the Collector which was sent to

the District Court Rajnandgaon for adjudication as per the

provisions of the Act. The Learned Additional District Judge,

Khairagarh while exercising powers under Section 18 of the Act has

held that the award passed by the Land Acquisition Officer is not

proper and the Learned Additional District Judge after perusing the

same sent the case to calculate the compensation as per the

guideline of Sub-Registrar. Hence, this appeal by the

Appellant/State.

3. Learned Counsel appearing for the Appellant/State submitted that

the Court below has erred in holding that the reference under

Section 18 of the Act is maintainable after receiving the

compensation by the Respondent with protest. The Court below

has also committed gross error in accepting the reference, which

was time barred. The impugned order passed by the Court below

is not a speaking order and is not an award under Section 26 of the

Act. Therefore, it is prayed by the Learned Counsel that the

impugned award/order dated 6.1.2014 passed by the Additional

District Judge be set aside.

4. Learned Counsel appearing for the Respondent opposed the

arguments advanced on behalf of the Appellant/State.

5. I have heard the arguments raised on behalf of the parties and

perused the record of the Court below and other material annexed

with the record.

6. The reference has been made on 2 grounds as follows:

(i) Instead of the fact that the land which was acquired was an irrigated land, the compensation was awarded on the basis of non-irrigated land,

(ii) The compensation was not granted on the basis of market value of the acquired land.

7. The Learned Additional District Judge, relying on the entries of

Khasra Panchshala for the years from 1991-92 to 1995-96 (Ex.P1)

and electricity bills for the months of January and August of the

year 1992 (Ex.P2 and P3), opined that the land which was acquired

was the irrigated land. I have perused the above documents and

also perused the statement of the Respondent's Witness No.1

Patwari Anil Verma. There is no dispute on the point that the

notification under Section 4 of the Act was published on 7.2.2003

and the notification under Section 6 of the Act was issued on

6.6.2003 and the award of compensation was passed on

19.1.2004. In kaifiyat column of Khasra Panchshala of 1991-92,

one well and one electric pump are mentioned. Likewise, in Khasra

Panchshala of 1994-95 also, the land is shown as irrigated land

and one well and one electric pump are also shown. Patwari Anil

Verma admitted the fact that in Khasra Panchshala of 1992-93,

1993-94, 1994-95 and 1995-96, there is no mention of irrigated

land. Though he stated that in the Khasra Panchshala of 1994-95

v-i- is mentioned, but he also admitted that in that also there is

over-writing. From the above admissions made by Patwari Anil

Verma, it is clear that in the Khasra Panchshala from 1991-92 to

1995-96, no irrigated land is mentioned. No Khasra Panchshala of

the year of notification, i.e., of 2003 is produced. The Respondent

has also not produced any evidence to show that in the year 2003

in the acquired land there was a well and one electric pump was

also installed there. Therefore, only on the basis of the entry for the

year 1991-92, it cannot be established that in the year 2003 also

the acquired land was irrigated land, one well was there and one

electric pump was also installed there. Therefore, the finding of the

Learned Additional District Judge that the acquired land was

irrigated land is not in accordance with the evidence available on

record.

8. With regard to the valuation of the acquired land, from perusal of

the award dated 19.1.2004 passed by the Land Acquisition Officer,

it also appears that valuation of the acquired land was done on the

basis of market value. In paragraph 10 of the award dated

19.1.2004, the Land Acquisition Officer mentioned the procedure

which was followed for determination of the market value of the

acquired land. Accordingly, in paragraph 11 of the award, market

value of the acquired land was determined. Therefore, the finding

of the Learned Additional District Judge in this regard is also not in

accordance with the evidence available on record.

9. Resultantly, the instant appeal is allowed. The impugned order

dated 6.1.2014 passed by the Additional District Judge is set aside.

Sd/-

(Arvind Singh Chandel) JUDGE Gopal