Chattisgarh High Court
Ramnath vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 3 November, 2022
1
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
Writ Appeal No. 263 of 2022
1. Ramnath S/o Late Sampat Aged About 52 Years R/o Resident of
Village Pendari, Police Station- Janjgir, Tahsil And District Janjgir-
Champa (Chhattisgarh), Through- Power of Attorney Girdhari
Kashyap S/o Shri Vishnu Charan, Aged About 45 Years, Resident
of Munund, Tahsil- Janjgir, District : Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh
2. Ramlal S/o Late Sampat Aged About 50 Years R/o Resident of
Village Pendari, Police Station- Janjgir, Tahsil And District Janjgir-
Champa (Chhattisgarh), Through- Power of Attorney Girdhari
Kashyap S/o Shri Vishnu Charan, Aged About 45 Years, Resident
of Munund, Tahsil- Janjgir, District : Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh
3. Gendram S/o Late Sampat Aged About 48 Years R/o Resident of
Village Pendari, Police Station- Janjgir, Tahsil And District Janjgir-
Champa (Chhattisgarh), Through- Power of Attorney Girdhari
Kashyap S/o Shri Vishnu Charan, Aged About 45 Years, Resident
of Munund, Tahsil- Janjgir, District : Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh
4. Bedram S/o Late Sampat Aged About 44 Years R/o Resident of
Village Pendari, Police Station- Janjgir, Tahsil And District Janjgir-
Champa (Chhattisgarh), Through- Power of Attorney Girdhari
Kashyap S/o Shri Vishnu Charan, Aged About 45 Years, Resident
of Munund, Tahsil- Janjgir, District : Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh
5. Chhotelal S/o Late Sampat Aged About 42 Years R/o Resident of
Village Pendari, Police Station- Janjgir, Tahsil And District Janjgir-
Champa (Chhattisgarh), Through- Power of Attorney Girdhari
Kashyap S/o Shri Vishnu Charan, Aged About 45 Years, Resident
of Munund, Tahsil- Janjgir, District : Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh
6. Santram S/o Late Sampat Aged About 42 Years R/o Resident of
Village Pendari, Police Station- Janjgir, Tahsil And District Janjgir-
Champa (Chhattisgarh), Through- Power of Attorney Girdhari
Kashyap S/o Shri Vishnu Charan, Aged About 45 Years, Resident
of Munund, Tahsil- Janjgir, District : Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh
---- Appellants
Versus
1. State of Chhattisgarh Through- Secretary, Department of Revenue,
Mantralaya Mahanadi Bhavan, Atal Nagar, Naya Raipur, District
Raipur (C.G.)
2. Collector, Janjgir, District : Janjgir-Champa (C.G.)
3. District Planning Committee Janjgir, District : Janjgir-Champa (C.G.)
2
4. Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue) Janjgir, District : Janjgir-Champa
(C.G.)
5. Tahsildar Janjgir, District : Janjgir-Champa (C.G.)
---- Respondents
(Cause-title taken from Case Information System)
For Appellants : Mr. Bharat Rajput, Advocate.
For Respondents : Mr. Vikram Sharma, Deputy Government
Advocate.
Hon'ble Shri Arup Kumar Goswami, Chief Justice
Hon'ble Shri Sanjay Agrawal, Judge
Judgment on Board
Per Arup Kumar Goswami, Chief Justice
03.11.2022
Heard Mr. Bharat Rajput, learned counsel for the appellants. Also
heard Mr. Vikram Sharma, learned Deputy Government Advocate,
appearing for the respondents.
2. This appeal is presented against an order dated 16.03.2022 passed
by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition (C) No. 239 of 2022,
dismissing the writ petition.
3. The pleaded case in the writ petition, in short, was that land at
village Janjgir bearing Khasra No. 5046/6 (area 0.36 acre), Khasra No.
5048 (area 0.01 acre), Khasra No. 5049 (area 0.0½ acre), Khasra No.
5053 (area 0.19 acre) and Khasra No. 5058 (area 0.01 acre), totaling
0.58½ acre was acquired for construction of road and it was assured that,
in return, three times the land of the petitioners would be given to them in
government land bearing Khasra No. 5062, but they had been given land
only 1½ times, i.e., 0.85 acres.
4. It is stated in the petition that the petitioners had filed an application
before the Tehsildar, who recommended grant of further land
admeasuring 5.87 acres from Khasra No. 5062 and the Deputy Collector
had also recommended by his order dated 08.06.2012 to grant three
times the land acquired from the petitioners.
5. When no action was taken on the basis of such recommendation,
the petitioners filed an application before the Collector, Janjgir-Champa
on 17.10.2019. But, as no decision was taken on the said
recommendation, the petitioners had approached this Court by filing a
writ petition, being Writ Petition (C) No. 1972 of 2018 and the said writ
petition was disposed of by this Court by an order dated 26.09.2019,
directing the Collector to consider the recommendation made by the
Deputy Collector on 08.06.2012 within a period of three months.
6. The Collector, thereafter, passed an order dated 29.11.2019,
rejecting the claim of the petitioners.
7. Assailing the said order, the writ petition came to be filed, out of
which, this present appeal arises.
8. At this juncture, it is to be noted that the petitioners are the sons of
the person from whom the land was acquired.
9. In the writ petition, a return was filed by the State-respondents on
14.09.2021. It is stated that the land was acquired for the purpose of
construction of approach road by an order dated 26.07.2000 under
provisions contained in Part-IV Clause 20 of the Revenue Book Circular.
10. It is pleaded that consent was given by the father of the petitioners
and no objection was raised by him at the time when the land was
acquired and 1.5 times land was given to him. It is also pleaded that the
Tehsildar as well as the Deputy Collector had no authority to recommend
for grant of additional land as the Collector is the only authorized person
to accord permission for acquisition on exchange basis.
11. In paragraphs 4, 5, 6 and 7 of the return filed by the State, it is
stated as follows:
"4. It is further respectfully submitted that the
present petition filed by the petitioner is hit by delay and
laches because vide order dated 26.07.2000, the lands
of the petitioners were acquired by the answering
respondents for the purpose of construction of approach
road on the exchange/consent basis of the land holders
and after lapse of about 10 years, in the year 2010, the
petitioners moved application before the Tahsildar,
Janjgir seeking grant of 3 times land in lieu of their
acquired land. Hence, the petitioners knocked the door
of the Tahsildar, Janjgir Champa at the very belated time
raising the stale claim which is not sustainable in the
eyes of law. Hence, the present petition deserves to be
dismissed on the ground of delay and laches.
5. It is respectfully submitted that the Collector has been
vested with the powers to accord permission for
acquisition of an agriculture government land from the
private land of the agriculturist on exchange basis under
the provisions contained in Part-IV Clause 20 of the
Revenue Book Circular and to demonstrate the above,
copy of the relevant page of Part IV clause 20 of the
Revenue Book Circular is filed herewith as Annexure
R/1. It is submitted that under the aforesaid provision,
keeping in mind the type of land and its value at that
point of time, the answering respondents acquired the
land of the petitioners on exchange/consent basis given
by the father of the petitioners at that point of time and
while acquisition, no objection was raised by the father of
the petitioners. It is submitted that in lieu of the
acquisition of land, the answering respondents provided
11/2 times land to him.
6. At this juncture, it is necessary to point out that the
order for acquisition of land of the petitioners was passed
by the Collector on 26.07.2000 because the Collector
has the powers under Part-VI clause 20 of the Revenue
Book Circular in this regard. It is respectfully submitted
that the petitioners moved application under Section 51
of the Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code, 1959 before
the Collector, seeking review of the order of the Collector
and to grant three times land in lieu of their acquired
land. The said application was moved by the petitioners
after lapse of 10 years from the date of passing of the
acquisition order by the Collector, District Janjgir
Champa (CG.) while it must be moved within 90 days
from the date of passing of the order of acquisition by the
Collector, District Janjgir Champa (CG.). Hence, the
petitioners approached before authority after expiry of
the time limit.
7. That, so far as the recommendation of the Tahsildar as
well as Deputy Collector is concerned, in this regard, it is
respectfully submitted that while making
recommendation in favour of the petitioners for grant of
additional land, the Tahsildar as well as Deputy Collector
both have exceeded its jurisdiction for the reason that
under Part-IV clause 20 of the Revenue Book Circular
(Annexure R/1), the Collector has only powers to accord
permission for acquisition of an agriculture land from a
private land on exchange basis, therefore, the Tahsildar
as well as the Deputy Collector both has no power to
accept the application moved by the petitioners and
accordingly the recommendations made by the Tahsildar
as well as the Deputy Collector are non-est in the eyes of
law."
12. Though the said return was filed on 14.06.2021, and though the writ
petition was disposed of finally 9 months later, in the interregnum period,
no rejoinder-affidavit was filed by the petitioners.
13. Mr. Rajput may be correct in submitting that the learned Single
Judge misdirected himself in considering the provisions of Land
Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, 'Act of 1894') and Right to Fair
Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and
Resettlement Act, 2013 (for short, 'Act of 2013') inasmuch as land was
not acquired under the provisions of the said Acts. However, on
consideration of the factual matrix as noted herein before, we are of the
considered opinion that in the ultimate analysis, no case is made out by
the petitioners for grant of relief, as prayed for.
14. Taking that view, the writ appeal is dismissed. No Cost.
Sd/- Sd/-
(Arup Kumar Goswami) (Sanjay Agrawal)
Chief Justice Judge
Brijmohan
