Shankh Deo Mishra vs State Of Chhattisgarh
2022 Latest Caselaw 7517 Chatt

                                          1
                                                                          NAFR
             HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

                                 WPC No. 5494 of 2022

  1. Shankh Deo Mishra S/o Late Jagbandhu Mishra Aged About 61 Years R/o
     W. No. 10, Gharghoda District Raigarh Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur,
     Chhattisgarh

                                                                   ---- Petitioner

                                        Versus

  1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through Collector, District Raigarh Chhattisgarh.,
     District : Raigarh, Chhattisgarh

  2. Union Of India Through Secretary, Ministry Of Railways , Rail Bhawan Rafi
     Marg, New Delhi.

  3. Chief Engineer South Eastern Central Railways , Bilaspur , District Bilaspur
     Chhattisgarh.

  4. Deputy Chief Engineer South Eastern Central Railways , Raigarh , District
     Raigarh Chhattisgarh.

  5. Land Acquisition Officer /sdo Gharghoda, District Raigarh.

                                                           ---- Respondents

For Petitioner            : Mr. Ishan Verma, Advocate.
For State                 : Mr. Vikas Shrivastava, P.L.
For Respondent 2 to 4     : Mr. Ramakant Mishra, ASG.




                     Hon'ble Shri Justice P. Sam Koshy
                               Order On Board
13.12.2022

1. Aggrieved by the inaction on the part of the respondent No. 5 in not

concluding the proceedings initiated by him for passing of a

supplementary award in the acquisition proceedings in which the

original award was passed on 30.05.2015, the present writ petition

has been filed.

2. The facts of the case are that the petitioner's private property stood

acquired by the respondents for the purpose of laying of railway track.

The award was originally passed on 30.05.2015. The Petitioner's

property situates in Khasra Nos. 357/1 and 357/8 measuring 1.424

hectare of which measuring 0.643 hectare stood acquired by the

respondent No.5 and for which the petitioner has also been

compensated.

3. However, subsequently the petitioner came to know that there are

certain additional land also which stood acquired in the process,

which does not find place in the award, to which he approached the

authorities concerned. The authorities vide a report submitted by the

Patwari after scrutiny and verification of the land which stood

acquired, found that the additional land to the extent of 0.376 hectare

was also taken over by the respondent No. 5 and the said portion of

land has got skipped from the award and for which the petitioner is

entitled for compensation. The matter was thereafter placed before

the Sub Divisional Officer, the respondent No. 5- the Land Acquisition

Officer who has initiated the proceedings for passing of a

supplementary award vide proceedings dated 13.08.2021. However

there has been no further development and since it is more than a

year, the petitioner is compelled to approach this Court.

4. Learned Assistance Solicitor General appearing for Respondents No.

2 to 4 submits that from the report of (Annexure P/4) submitted by the

Patwari, it appears that certain land in excess to the award stands

utilized by the railway in the process of construction and laying of the

track. Since the Sub Divisional Officer has already initiated

proceedings, the Railway Authorities shall take appropriate steps in-

terms- of the supplementary award, if any, to be passed by the

concerned Land Acquisition Officer. That in case, if ultimately

compensation is quantified, the Railway Authorities shall be making

necessary compliance in terms of the award.

5. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Vidya Devi Vs. State of

Himachal Pradesh and others, 2020 (2) SCC 569 has in very

categorical terms held that under the constitutional right under Article

300A, no person can be deprived of his property save by authority of

or procedures established by law. It has been further held by the

Hon'ble Supreme Court that it is the obligation upon the agency

acquiring the property to pay compensation. Even though it is not

expressly included in Article 300A but it has to be safely inferred that

way. So far as the delay part is concerned, in the very same judgment

the Hon'ble Supreme Court has also held that delay and laches

cannot be a ground for denying a person an appropriate

compensation for the land of his which stood taken over by the Govt..

Further also that there can be no period of limitation for the Courts to

exercise constitutional jurisdiction so as to do substantial justice. The

Hon'ble Supreme Court in the said judgment was also of the view that

expropriation of private property forcibly by the State without following

any procedure or payment of compensation cannot be countenance.

6. The Constitution of India, Article 300A, while creating a right to

properties on its citizen, has also specifically envisaged that no

person can be deprived of his private property save by authority of

law. The said right which stands enshrined under Article 300A also

cannot be taken away invoking the powers which have been

conferred upon the government under Article 162.

7. Given the said submission made by the Counsels for the parties, the

present writ petition is disposed of directing the respondent No. 5 to

ensure that the proceedings initiated vide (Annexure P/5) dated

13.08.2021 is concluded in accordance with law after due scrutiny

and verification of the records and appropriate supplementary award,

if required, be passed at the earliest within an outer limit of four

months.

8. Accordingly, the present writ petition stands disposed of.

Sd/-

P. Sam Koshy) Judge Jyoti