Chattisgarh High Court
Dular vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 20 January, 2022
-1-
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
Writ Petition (C) No. 389 of 2022
1. Dular S/o Bahadul, Aged About 40 Years, Resident Of Village
Chandrapur, Tehsil Dabhra, District Janjgir Champa, Chhattisgarh.
2. Harihar S/o Chhotu, Aged About 39 Years, Resident Of Village
Chandrapur, Tehsil Dabhra, District Janjgir Champa Chhattisgarh.
3. Satyanarayan S/o Lalchand, Aged About 66 Years, Resident Of
Village Chandrapur, Tehsil Dabhra, District Janjgir Champa
Chhattisgarh.
4. Champa Devi W/o Vijay Kumar, Aged About 58 Years, Resident Of
Village Chandrapur, Tehsil Dabhra, District Janjgir Champa
Chhattisgarh.
5. Vinod Kumar S/o Omkarmal, Aged About 62 Years, Resident Of
Village Chandrapur, Tehsil Dabhra, District Janjgir Champa
Chhattisgarh.
6. Radheshyam S/o Omkarmal, Aged About 76 Years, Resident Of
Village Chandrapur, Tehsil Dabhra, District Janjgir Champa
Chhattisgarh.
7. Nareshkumar S/o Arjunlal, Aged About 59 Years, Resident Of
Village Chandrapur, Tehsil Dabhra, District Janjgir Champa
Chhattisgarh.
8. Vijaykumar S/o Shyamchand, Aged About 62 Years, Resident Of
Village Chandrapur, Tehsil Dabhra, District Janjgir Champa
Chhattisgarh.
---- Petitioners
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.
-2-
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 Ashish Tiwari, Govt. Advocate.
Hon'ble Shri Justice P. Sam Koshy
Order on Board
20.01.2022
1. The grievance of the petitioners seems to be non-granting of interest
to the petitioners against the land belonging to them which were
acquired from the date the possession was taken till the date the
award has been passed.
2. The facts of the case are that, the land of the petitioners were
acquired in the year, 2018, however, the petitioners were not paid
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 1 to 8 filed WPC Nos.
278/21, 288/21, 1472/21, 1489/21, 1486/21, 1481/21 1467/21 and
1475/21 which were disposed of on 27.01.21, 27.01.21, 16.03.21,
16.03.21, 16.03.21, 16.03.21, 12.03.21 & 16.03.21 respectively
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 petitioners that pursuant to the
disposal of earlier writ petitions, 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 petitions.
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 :
"Considering the entire facts situation of the case and the
judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the
writ petition is disposed of with direction that in the event
the petitioner moves a representation before the
respondent nos. 2 & 3 claiming the interest for the
period of passing of the award and its disbursal, within a
period of 4 weeks from today, the said respondents shall
consider and decide the representation at the earliest,
preferably within a period of 4 months thereafter. "
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, 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
Khatai
