Chattisgarh High Court
Chief Engineer / Executive ... vs Chanda Devi on 5 July, 2022
1
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
WA No. 318 of 2020
Chief Engineer / Executive Engineer Public Works Department, National
Highway Area, Pensionbada, Raipur District Raipur Chhattisgarh.
---- Appellant
Versus
1. Chanda Devi W/o Ishwar Chand Agrawal Aged About 52 Years R/o
Agrasen Ward Nagar, Ambikapur District Surguja Chhattisgarh.
2. State Of Chhattisgarh Through Its Secretary, Revenue Department,
Mantralaya, Atal Nagar, Raipur District Raipur Chhattisgarh
(Formal Party).
3. The Collector Surguja District Surguja Chhattisgarh (Formal Party).
4. The Sub Divisional Officer -Cum-Prescribed Authority Land
Acquisition, Ambikapur Surguja District Surguja Chhattisgarh
(Formal Party).
5. The Upper Commissioner Surguja Division, Ambikapur District
Surguja Chhattisgarh (Formal Party).
---- Respondents
(Cause-title taken from Case Information System)
For Appellant : Mr. Ramkant Mishra, Assistant
Solicitor General along with Mr. Tushar Diwan,
Central Government Counsel.
For Respondent No. 1 : Mr. Ankit Shriwas, Advocate.
For Respondents No. 2 to 5 : Mr. H.S. Ahluwalia, Deputy Advocate
General.
Hon'ble Shri Arup Kumar Goswami, Chief Justice
Hon'ble Shri Parth Prateem Sahu, Judge
Judgment on Board
Per Arup Kumar Goswami, Chief Justice
05.07.2022
I.A. No. 02 of 2022 is an application for condonation of delay of 287
days in preferring the connected appeal.
2. This application is not opposed by Mr. Ankit Shriwas, learned
counsel, appearing for respondent No. 1 and Mr. H.S. Ahluwalia, learned
Deputy Advocate General, appearing for respondents No. 2 to 5. They
further contend that the appeal is rendered infructuous because of
subsequent events.
3. It is pleaded in the application for condonation of delay that due to
process involved in preferring the appeal, the delay has been occasioned
and there was no deliberate delay and laches in preferring the appeal.
4. Delay stands condoned. I.A. No.02 of 2021 is disposed of.
5. Heard the learned counsel for the parties also on the appeal.
6. This appeal is presented against an order dated 26.07.2019
passed in WPC No. 2578 of 2019.
7. A perusal of the aforesaid order goes to show that the learned
counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners may be granted
liberty to file a representation before Additional Commissioner, Surguja in
connection with land acquisition and on the basis of such submission, the
writ petition was disposed of with the following observations:
"2. Without going into the merits of this case, it is
directed that if the representation is made by the
petitioners within a period of 30 days from today, same
may be decided within a further period of 60 days from the
date of representation."
8. By the order dated 26.07.2019 passed in WPC No. 2576 of 2019, the
learned Single Judge had clearly indicated that the Court had not gone into
the merit of the case.
9. Subsequent to passing of the aforesaid order, an order dated
27.09.2019 was passed by the Additional Commissioner, Surguja, directing
the Sub Divisional Officer, Ambikapur to pay interest for the delay in
payment of award.
10. The petitioner in WPC No. 2578 of 2019, had filed another writ
petition being WPC No. 202 of 2020 and the said writ petition was
disposed of by an order dated 17.01.2020 to the following effect:
"1. The relief sought for by the petitioner through the
present writ petition is for issuance of an appropriate
direction to respondents no. 2 to 4 to take appropriate
steps for ensuring compliance of the order passed by
respondent no.5 i.e. the Additional Commissioner, Surguja
Division, Ambikapur, vide his order dated
27.9.2019 passed in case no. 333/A-82/2018-19.
2. Contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is
that after the respondent no.3 had acquired the property of
the petitioner, he was paid compensation at a belated
stage and therefore the respondent no.5 vide his order
dated 27.9.2019 (Annexure P-1) had ordered for grant of
interest on the said belated release of compensation to the
petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
though more than three months have passed, the
respondents have till date not honoured the said order and
therefore an appropriate direction be issued in this regard.
3. Learned State Counsel at this juncture submits that, let
the petitioner approach the respondents no. 2 to 4 by way
of a fresh representation which shall be considered and
decided at the earliest.
4. Given the said facts and circumstances of the
case, this Court is of the opinion that the present writ
petition can be disposed of directing the petitioner to file a
fresh claim before respondents no. 2 to 4 within a period of
fifteen days from today and the respondents no. 2 to 4 in
turn shall ensure compliance of the order dated 27.9.2019
unless the said order is under challenge before any other
forum.
5. Let the respondents no. 2 to 4 take a decision on the
claim of the petitioner within a further period of 90 days
from the date of receipt of representation of the petitioner.
6. With the aforesaid direction, the writ petition stands
disposed of."
11. On the pointed query of the Court, Mr. Ramakant Mishra, learned
Assistant Solicitor General and Mr. Tushar Diwan, learned Central
Government Counsel, appearing for the appellant submits that no challenge
is made to the order dated 27.09.2019 by way of initiating any independent
proceeding, but a prayer is made in this appeal to set aside the order dated
27.09.2019.
12. Prayer to quash the order dated 27.09.2019 passed by the Additional
Commissioner, Surguja, in this appeal is not tenable in law.
13. No appeal has been preferred against the order passed in WPC No.
257 of 2020.
14. Having regard to the sequence of events as noted hereinabove, we
are of the opinion that there is no surviving cause of action in this appeal
and accordingly, the same is dismissed as infructuous. However, appellant
is at liberty to assail the order dated 27.09.2019 in accordance with law,
before the appropriate forum, if so advised.
Sd/- Sd/-
(Arup Kumar Goswami) (Parth Prateem Sahu)
Chief Justice Judge
Hem
