Daulal Sahu vs State Of Chhattisgarh
2022 Latest Caselaw 7514 Chatt

                                        1

                                                                        NAFR
                HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
                                 W.A. No. 153 of 2022
                               Reserved on 22.11.2022
                              Pronounced on 13.12.2022
     1. Daulal Sahu S/o Jaitram Sahu Aged About 44 Years R/o Village
        Ramgarh, Tahsil And District Mungeli, Chhattisgarh.
     2. Ramcharan Sahu S/o Jaitram Sahu Aged About 38 Years R/o Village
        Ramgarh, Tahsil And District Mungeli, Chhattisgarh.
                                                              ---- Appellants
                                     Versus
     1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of Revenue,
        Mantralaya Bhawan, New Raipur.
     2. The Collector District Mungeli, Chhattisgarh.
     3. Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue) Cum Land Acquisition Officer Mungeli,
        District Mungeli, Chhattisgarh.
     4. Chief Medical Officer Cum Hospital Superintendent District Hospital,
        Mungeli, District Mungeli, Chhattisgarh.
                                                            ---- Respondents

(Cause-title taken from Case Information System)

For Appellants: Shri Ravindra Agrawal, Advocate For State/Respondents: Shri Gagan Tiwari, Dy. G.A.

Hon'ble Shri Arup Kumar Goswami, Chief Justice & Hon'ble Shri Sanjay Agrawal, Judge

CAV Judgment

Per Sanjay Agrawal, J

1. This appeal has been preferred by the writ petitioners under Section

2(1) of the Chhattisgarh High Court (Appeal to Division Bench) Act, 2006,

questioning the legality and propriety of the order dated 07.01.2022 passed by

the learned Single Judge in WP(C) No.75 of 2022, whereby, the writ

petitioners' claim has been refused. The parties to this appeal shall be referred

hereinafter as per their description before the learned Single Judge.

2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the writ petitioners' land

bearing Khasra No.344/2 admeasuring 0.615 hectare (1.52 acres) out of total

area of 0.809 hectare (2.00 acres), situated at village Ramgarh, P. H. No.30,

R.I. Circle Mungeli, Tehsil Mungeli, District Bilaspur (Now District Mungeli) has

been acquired by the State Government for construction of new 100 bedded

Government hospital at Mungeli and, it was purchased under the State

Government's Land Purchase Policy By Mutual Consent, 2016. According to

the writ petitioners, a registered deed of sale dated 28.02.2019 was executed

with regard to the said land under immense pressure only for a consideration

of Rs.78,80,000/- as in order to pressurize them, an Istgasha No.48/188/2016

under Sections 107, 116(3) and 151 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 was

registered against the Petitioner No.1, although it was proposed to be

purchased earlier for a consideration of Rs.92,25,000/- on 17.07.2018 by the

State Government.

3. Further contention of the writ petitioners is that out of remaining 0.48

hectare land of Khasra No.344/2, major portion of it, i.e., about 25-30 decimals

have also been possessed by the Government for the purposes of approach

road and parking of the newly constructed hospital building. It is pleaded

further in the petition that at the time of acquisition of land in question, the writ

petitioners had requested the authorities to provide them a piece of land

admeasuring 20' x 30' sq. ft. adjoining to the hospital building. Referring to the

memo dated 11.03.2019 (Annexure P/8), which was issued by Sub Divisional

Officer (Revenue)-cum-Land Acquisition Officer, Mungeli to the Respondent

No.4-Chief Medical Officer-cum-Hospital Superintendent, it is pleaded that

Respondent No.4 was instructed to provide the said land to the petitioners, but

till date, the same has not been provided. It is pleaded further that 0.48 acres

of their land was not acquired, yet the major portion of it has been encroached

by the State Government and despite request being made for its demarcation

and handing over the possession of the remaining land, the same has not

been done which led to the filing of the petition by seeking following reliefs:-

"10.1 The Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue appropriate writ/writs, direction/directions, order/orders and to direct for an inquiry by the higher authority about the procedure adopted for taking the land of the petitioners for construction of the new hospital building at Ramgarh, Mungeli, and further that the adequate compensation be awarded to the petitioners as per the prevailing market rate of the land including all the consequential benefits and accrued interest @ 12 % per annum over it.

10.2 That, the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent authorities to pay the difference amount of sale deed dated 28.02.2019 and the proposal dated 17.07.2018 along with the interest @ 12 % per annum.

10.3 That, the Hon'ble Court further be pleased to direct the respondent authorities to demarcate the remaining 0.48 Acres of land in accordance with law and award appropriate compensation to them for the land in which the road and parking of the newly constructed hospital building is constructed after completion of land acquisition process within the stipulated time.

10.4 That, the Hon'ble Court further be pleased to direct the respondent authorities to fulfill their promise to allot the piece of land there to the petitioners for running their tea stall/ daily needs shop nearby the new hospital building.

10.5 The Hon'ble Court further kindly be pleased to call for the entire records of the case of th petitioners for kind perusal.

10.6 Any other relief, which the Hon'ble Court deems fit looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, along with cost of the petition, may also be granted to the petitioners."

4. After considering the contention of the writ petitioners, the learned

Single Judge vide its order impugned observed that since the disputed

question of facts has been alleged by the writ petitioners, therefore, the writ

petition cannot be entertained and, observed further that as the entire sale

consideration of the land in question has been paid at the time of execution of

the registered deed of sale, the writ petitioners are, therefore, not entitled to

get the difference amount of sale consideration as prayed for. It was observed

further that for remaining piece of their land, they may apply for demarcation in

order to ascertain the same and, so far as allotment of 20' x 30' sq.ft. of land is

concerned, it was observed that the concerned Sub Divisional Officer

(Revenue)-cum-Land Acquisition Officer has vide its memo dated 11.03.2019

(Annexure P/8) had only made a recommendation for the said purpose and, in

absence of any specific agreement in this aspect, no claim as such could be

claimed by the writ petitioners. In consequence, the learned Single Judge vide

its order impugned has dismissed the petition and being aggrieved, the instant

appeal has been preferred.

5. Learned counsel appearing for the writ petitioners, while referring to the

"Proposal For Purchase of alleged land" (Annexure P/4), made on 17.07.2018,

wherein it was agreed by the State Government to purchase the land for a

consideration of Rs.92,25,000/-, but despite that, the State Authorities had

purchased the same contrary to their own proposal only for a consideration of

Rs.78,80,000/- at the time of execution of the registered deed of sale, submits

that the learned Single Judge ought to have provided the writ petitioners the

difference amount of consideration as prayed for, while taking note of the said

proposal. It is contended further that the amount of sale consideration shown

in the sale deed was received by the writ petitioners under protest at the time

of its execution itself, however, without considering the same, the learned

Single Judge has committed an illegality in dismissing the petition. It is

contended further that the part of the remaining land, i.e., about 25-30

decimals of land have been encroached by the State Authorities and despite

request being made for its demarcation, the same has not been done and,

contended further on the basis of memo dated 11.03.2019 (Annexure P/8),

issued by the Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue)-cum-Land Acquisition Officer to

the Respondent No.4, that the learned Single Judge ought to have directed

the State Authorities for allotment of the said piece of land, i.e., 20' x 30' sq.ft.

near the hospital building. Having failed to do so, the learned Single Judge has

erred in dismissing the petition in its entirety.

6. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the

Respondents/State has supported the order impugned as passed by the

learned Single Judge. Since, the writ petition was heard on 07.01.2022 at

motion stage and was decided finally, therefore, during the pendency of this

appeal, the respondents/state have submitted the reply/return as under:-

6.1 In response to the writ petitioners' claim, it is stated by the

respondent/state that for the purpose of construction of 100

bedded Government Hospital, the writ petitioners' land and the

other land owners were identified and a proposal for purchase of

the land bearing Khasra No.344/2 admeasuring 1.52 acres (0.615

hectare) situated at Village Ramgarh, Tehsil Mungel was made in

Form 'A' under the provisions of Niyam, 2016 and, as per the

guidelines issued by the Collector for the year 2017-18, the

compensation to the tune of Rs.46,12,500/- was finally determined

as per the rate of Rs.75,00,000/- per hectare as the said land is

situated at other approach road and, thereafter, a sum of

Rs.46,12,500/- under the head of solatium was determined and

that by aiding a sum of Rs.5,00,000/-, towards the head of

rehabilitation, the writ petitioners' land was assessed to the tune of

Rs.97,25,000/-. It is contended further that the said compensation

has been determined as per the report dated 06.07.2018

(Annexure R/2) submitted by concerned Halka Patwari, who had

given his report to the effect that the land is irrigated and is

situated at the road used for Mungeli from Ramgarh. It is stated

further that after following the procedure prescribed under the

Niyam, 2016, the final award (Annexure R/4) was passed on

30.08.2018 by the Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue)-cum-Land

Acquisition Officer, Mungeli determining total amount of

compensation to the tune of Rs.1,60,26,800/-, out of which, a total

sum of Rs.97,25,000/- was assessed with regard to the land

owned by the writ petitioners.

6.2 Further contention of the respondent/state is that the

aforesaid award (Annexure R/4) so passed was forwarded to the

Collector, Mungeli for its approval on 30.08.2018, who, in turn,

after going through the said award and other documents attached

to it, has directed for re-conducting the spot inspection and,

accordingly, it was again got conducted from the concerned Halka

Patwari, who has submitted his report (Annexure R/5) whereby it

was reported that the proposed land is irrigated and is situated at

more than 20 meters away from the approach road. In view of the

said situation and as per the prevailing Collector's guidelines, the

compensation at the rate of Rs.60,00,000/- per hectare has been

calculated and, according to which a sum of Rs.36,90,000/- has

been redetermined with regard to the land owned by the writ

petitioners and, under the head of solatium, a sum of

Rs.36,90,000/- has also been determined and that by aiding a sum

of Rs.5,00,000/- under the head of rehabilitation, awarded the writ

petitioners a total amount of compensation to the tune of

Rs.78,80,000/- by virtue of the amended award dated 07.12.2018

(Annexure R/6), which has duly been approved by the Collector,

Mungeli on 22.12.2018 as reflected from the endorsement made

therein. It is contended further that in pursuance of the said

amended award, the alleged sale deed was executed and

registered by the writ petitioners on 28.02.2019 after receiving the

entire amount of compensation.

6.3. In so far as the demarcation of the remaining land, i.e., 0.48

acres of Khasra No.344/2 is concerned, it is contended by the

respondent/state that the demarcation of it was conducted on

07.05.2022 in presence of the writ petitioners and other villagers in

compliance of the order passed by the Court, wherein, it has been

found that out of the said land (0.48 acres), the writ petitioners are

found in possession of the land admeasuring 0.40 acres, while

remaining land has been used as road by the concerned Gram

Panchayat since 50 years. It is, therefore, contended that the

allegation of the writ petitioners in this regard is not sustainable

and deserves to be rejected.

6.4. It is contended further with regard to the claim for allotment

of land, on the basis of oral statement as well as based upon the

letter dated 11.03.2019 (Annexure P/8) that an appropriate

decision would be taken in accordance with law.

6.5. In rejoinder, it is pleaded by the writ petitioners that in

subsequent report (Annexure R/5), there was no panchnama or

revenue map in support of the said report, yet the Sub Divisional

Officer (Revenue)-cum-Land Acquisition Officer, Mungeli has

modified the earlier award, dated 30.08.2018 (Annexure R/4) while

reducing the amount of compensation to the tune of

Rs.78,80,000/- illegally. It is contended further that if the amount of

compensation of Rs.78,80,000/- as assessed was informed and

asked for consent, the writ petitioners would not have given their

consent on reduced amount of compensation and would not have

executed the alleged deed of sale on 28.02.2019. It is contended

further that if the demarcation report dated 07.05.2022 (Annexure

R/7) submitted by the Revenue Inspector, Mungeli containing the

Punchnama, dated 07.05.2022 is to be considered as true, then

the remaining land of the writ petitioners would show that it is

adjoining to the road as reflected and corroborated from the report

dated 06.07.2018 (Annexure R/2) submitted by the concerned

Patwari and, therefore, the amount of compensation has wrongly

been reduced from Rs.97,25,000/- to Rs.78,80,000/-.

7. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the entire

record carefully.

8. From perusal of the award, dated 30.08.2018 (Annexure R/4), it

appears that the amount of compensation to writ petitioners' land was

assessed to the tune of Rs.97,25,000/-. It, however, appears that when it was

forwarded by the Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue)-cum-Land Acquisition

Officer, Mungeli to the Collector, Mungelil for its approval on 30.08.2018, it was

observed by him after examining the said award as well as the documents

attached with it that since the spot inspection report does not bear its

supporting documents, therefore, it was directed for re-conducting the spot

inspection. It appears further that in pursuance of the said direction, the spot

inspection was again conducted by the concerned Halka Patwari, who, in turn,

has submitted his report (Annexure R/5) that the proposed land is irrigated and

is situated at more than 20 meters away from other approach road and

accordingly the said award (Annexure R/4) passed on 30.08.2018 was

amended vide award dated 07.12.2018 (Annexure R/6), whereby the amount

of compensation pertaining to the writ petitioners' land has been reduced from

Rs.97,25,000/- to Rs.78,80,000/-. It appears further that a registered deed of

sale was thereafter executed by the writ petitioners in favour of the State

Government through Tehsildar, Mungeli for a consideration of Rs.78,80,000/-

after obtaining the entire sale consideration. Pertinently to be noted here that

neither the said amended award (Annexure R/6) was questioned by the writ

petitioners nor the registered deed of sale, dated 28.02.2019 (Annexure P/6),

executed in pursuance of the said award, was questioned till date. In view

thereof, the authenticity of the alleged registered deed of sale and the recitals

made therein could not be overlooked.

9. Now, so far as the allegation of the writ petitioners that the part of their

remaining land, i.e., 0.48 acres of Khasra No.344/2 encroached by the State

Government is concerned, the same is, however, noted to be rejected as

during the pendency of the appeal, the demarcation of the same was

conducted on 07.05.2022 in presence of the writ petitioners and other

villagers, wherein, it has been found that out of the said land (0.48 acres), the

writ petitioners are found in possession of the land admeasuring 0.40 acres,

while remaining has been used as road by the concerned Gram Panchayat

since 50 years. Therefore, if the petitioners are dissatisfied with the same, they

may avail the alternative remedy as provided by the Chhattisgarh Land

Revenue Code, 1959 in this regard. In so far as their further claim for allotment

of land admeasuring 20' x 30' sq.ft. near the hospital building based upon the

oral and memo dated 11.03.2019 (Annexure P/8) issued by the Sub Divisional

Officer (Revenue)-cum-Land Acquisition Officer, Mungeli to Respondent No.4,

is concerned, for which, it is stated by the respondent/state that an appropriate

decision would be taken in accordance with law. The writ petitioners are,

therefore, not entitled to get this relief at this stage in view of the said stand of

the State Government.

10. In view of the aforesaid background, we do not find any error in the

order impugned so as to call for any interference in this appeal.

11. Consequently, the appeal being devoid of merit is dismissed.

No order as to costs.

                   Sd/-                                            Sd/-

           (Arup Kumar Goswami)                               (Sanjay Agrawal)
               Chief Justice                                      Judge


Nikita