Chattisgarh High Court
Meena vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 2 February, 2022
-1-
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
Writ Petition (C) No. 589 of 2022
1. Meena W/o Shantipani, Aged About 38 Years
2. Meghnath, S/o Santosh, Aged About 60 Years
3. Upasulal, S/o Late Surotin, Aged About 36 Years
4. Moharmati, Wd/o Mohani, Aged About 52 Years
5. Jivanlal, S/o Budhu, Aged About 46 Years
6. Mohit, S/o Late Jhulan, Aged About 38 Years
All are R/o Village Berhaguda, Tehsil Dabhra, District Janjgir Champa
Chhattisgarh.
---Petitioner(s)
Versus
1. State of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Department of Water Resource
Department, Mantralaya Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Raipur, District
Raipur Chhattisgarh.
2. Collector Janjgir Champa, District Janjgir Champa Chhattisgarh.
3. Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue) Cum Land Acquisition Officer Dabhra,
District Janjgir Champa Chhattisgarh.
4. Engineer-In-Chief, Water Resource Department Raipur, District Raipur
Chhattisgarh.
5. Chief Engineer, Water Resource Department Bilaspur, District Bilaspur
Chhattisgarh.
6. Executive Engineer, Water Resource Department, Raigarh, District
Raigarh Chhattisgarh.
---Respondents
For Petitioners : Shri Hariom Rai, Advocate.
For State : Shri Pawan Kesharwani, Panel Lawyer.
Hon'ble Shri Justice P. Sam Koshy
Order on Board
02.02.2022
1. The grievance of the petitioners seems to be non granting of interest to the
petitioners against the land belonging to the petitioners which were
acquired from the date the possession was taken till date the award has
been passed.
2. The facts of the case is that, the land of the petitioners were acquired in
the year, 2018, however, the petitioners were no paid the interest on the
said land and the amount of compensation quantified also was though
deposited with the Land Acquisition Officer, but were not released to them.
The petitioners filed WPC No.1054 of 2021, 997 of 2021, 606 of 2021, 317
of 2021, 331 of 2021, 320 of 2021 and 344 of 2021 which were disposed
of directing the respondents to release the payment of compensation
already deposited with the land Land Acquisition Officer and to decide the
claim for interest from the date the possession was taken.
3. It is contended by the counsel for the petitioners that pursuant to the
disposal of earlier writ petition, the respondents promptly released the
compensation to the petitioners and thereafter on a representation they
have been paid the interest also. However, the interest has been paid only
from the date of award i.e. 22.11.2018 and not from the date of possession
of the land. According to the petitioners, the possession was taken from
the petitioners way back in the year, 2011 as has been pleaded in the writ
petition.
4. It is necessary at this juncture to reproduce the operative part of the order
passed by this court in the earlier round of litigation, which reads as
under :
"4. It is further clarified that if the petitioners move an
application before the respondent No.3 about the entitlement
of the interest from the date the possession has been taken
till the date of actual payment, the same shall also be
decided within a further period of 90 days from the date of
representation."
5. It is also necessary to take note of the fact that the Supreme Court
recently in case of Gayabai Digambar Puri (Died) Through LR's Vs. The
Executive Engineer & Ors. Civil Appeal (Diary No.17566 of 2020), decided
on 03.01.2022, has held as under:
"2. The limited issue involved in this appeal is about the
liability to pay interest whether commences from the date of
taking possession or only from the date of award. The Court
while issuing notice on 13.01.2021 noted thus:
"Counsel for the petitioner(s) submits that the High
Court has glossed over the crucial fact that in the
present case, urgency clause was invoked. In
that event, in light of the exposition of this Court
in R.L. Jain (D) by Lrs. vs. D.D.A. & Ors.,
reported in (2004) 4 SCC 79, the interest ought
to be payable from the date of taking possession.
Issue notice on the application for condonation of
delay as also on the special leave petition,
returnable in four weeks.
Dasti, in addition, is permitted. Liberty is granted
to serve standing counsel for the State of
Maharashtra."
6. In view of the aforesaid, the only issue which needs to be considered at
this juncture is so far as the payment of interest payable to the petitioners
from the date of possession till the date of award. As the subsequent
interest part has already been taken care of as directed by this court in the
earlier round of litigation upon representation being made. The
respondents now have to decide only the entitlement of the petitioners for
interest from the date of possession of land onwards within a period of 90
days, however, though subsequently payment of interest has been made,
the same has been made only from the date of award.
7. Be that as it may, let the petitioners again approach the respondent No.3
by way of a suitable representation within a period of 30 days seeking for
interest from the date the actual possession was taken from the
petitioners, till date the award was passed. Upon such representation
being made, the respondent No.3 shall take an appropriate decision
strictly in accordance with law and also taking note of the judgment of the
Supreme Court referred to in the preceding paragraph at the earliest
preferably within a period of 90 days from the date of receipt of
representation of the petitioners.
8. The writ petition accordingly stands disposed of.
Sd/-
(P. Sam Koshy)
Judge
inder
