Chattisgarh High Court
Martand Singh vs The State Of Chhattisgarh on 5 September, 2022
1
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
Writ Appeal No. 469 of 2018
Martand Singh S/o Rambahadur Singh, Aged About 60 Years R/o North
Ring Road, Near Government School, Bauripara, Police Station- Kotwali,
Ambikapur, District-Surguja, Chhattisgarh.
---- Appellant
Versus
1. The State of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department of
Revenue Mahanadi Bhavan Mantralaya, Naya Raipur, District-
Raipur, Chhattisgarh.
2. Secretary Public Works Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, New
Raipur, Chhattisgarh, District-Raipur, Chhattisgarh.
3. Managing Director, Chhattisgarh, Road Development Corporation
3rd Floor Sirpur Bhawan Campus Behind Akashwani, Civil Lines
Raipur, Chhattisgarh, District-Raipur, Chhattisgarh.
4. Collector, District Surguja Chhattisgarh.
5. Commissioner, Municipal Corporation Ambikapur District Surguja,
Chhattisgarh.
6. Sub Divisional Officer Revenue, Ambikapur, District-Surguja,
Chhattisgarh.
7. Executive Engineer Department of Public Works, Ambikapur
District-Surguja, Chhattisgarh.
---- Respondents
(Cause-title taken from Case Information System)
For Appellant : Mr. A.K. Prasad, Advocate.
For Respondents : Mr. Vikram Sharma, Deputy Government
Advocate.
Hon'ble Shri Arup Kumar Goswami, Chief Justice
Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey, Judge
Judgment on Board
Per Arup Kumar Goswami, Chief Justice
05.09.2022
Heard Mr. A.K. Prasad, learned counsel for the appellant. Also
heard Mr. Vikram Sharma, learned Deputy Government Advocate,
appearing for the respondents.
2. This writ appeal is presented against an order dated 17.01.2018
passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition (C) No. 275 of 2017.
By the aforesaid order, another writ petition, being Writ Petition (C) No.48
of 2018 was also disposed of. Against the order passed in Writ Petition
(C) No. 48 of 2018, an appeal was preferred being Writ Appeal No. 470 of
2018. However, as non-payment of compensation, which was the subject
matter of the writ petition, was redressed by making payment of
compensation for the land acquired, the writ appeal was dismissed on
withdrawal on 02.02.2022.
3. The order of the learned Single Judge impugned in the present
appeal, reads as follows:
"(1) Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner
would submit that the petitioner's land has been
acquired by the respondent authorities, but in lieu of
that, compensation has not been paid to him and it
has been held by the respondent authorities that he is
not entitled for compensation, against which these writ
petitions have been filed by the petitioner for
appropriate direction to the respondent authorities for
payment of compensation.
(2) Learned counsel appearing for the respective
respondents would submit that the petitioner preferred
civil suit being Civil Suit No.54A/2011 before the trial
Court, the said civil suit has already been dismissed
by the trial Court on 16.03.2015 and it has been held
that the petitioner is not title-holder or possession-
holder over the suit land, therefore, the instant writ
petitions filed by the petitioner deserve to be
dismissed.
(3) I have heard learned counsel for the parties and
perused the record with utmost circumspection.
(4) It is not in dispute that the petitioner's father
namely late Rambahadur Singh preferred civil suit
being Civil Suit No.54A/2011 before the trial Court for
declaration of title and permanent injunction, but
during the pendency of suit, the petitioner's father
expired and petitioner was impleaded as plaintiff being
the legal representative of original plaintiff late
Rambahadur Singh. The said civil suit has been
dismissed by the trial Court on merits on 16.03.2015
and it has been held by the trial Court that the
petitioner has failed to establish title over the suit land,
but the said judgment and decree has not been
challenged further by the petitioner successfully before
the higher court and that has become final.
(5) After hearing learned counsel for the parties and
taking into consideration the fact that the petitioner has
failed to establish his title over the suit land and as
such the petitioner is not entitled for any relief.
Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. No order as
to costs."
4. Though at the time of disposal of writ petition on 17.01.2018, no
appeal was preferred against the decree passed in Civil Suit No.
54A/2011, it is submitted by Mr. Prasad that, subsequently, First Appeal
No. 174 of 2018 was filed before this Court against the decree dated
16.03.2015 passed by the learned trial Court. It is further submitted that
the said appeal is pending consideration.
5. The case of the petitioner, as presented in the writ petition, in a
nutshell, is that on 26.02.1951, the petitioner's father Shri Ram Bahadur
Singh purchased certain lands, amongst others, in Khasra Nos. 2050 and
2051, admeasuring 1.47 and 1.31 hectares, respectively from Mus.
Ruqman. It is stated that 0.15 acre of Khasra No. 2050 and 0.30 acre of
Khasra No. 2051 was acquired in or around 1955-56. It is pleaded that
the compensation for the aforesaid acquisition of land admeasuring 0.45
acre has not been paid till date. As certain constructions, belonging to the
family of the petitioner, were demolished, father of the petitioner had filed
the suit in question, being Civil Suit No. 54A/2011 for permanent
injunction.
6. Mr. Prasad has submitted that in the suit filed, the petitioner did not
seek for any declaration of right, title, interest and erroneously, the
learned trial judge has recorded a finding that the petitioner has not been
able to establish his right, title and interest. It is further submitted that in
civil suit No. 54A/2011, a finding was recorded that compensation has not
been paid till then. Subsequently, Rs.3,60,36,919.00 was determined to
be the compensation amount but by a letter dated 26.10.2016, payment
of compensation was denied holding that 0.45 acres of land is
government land.
7. Since the question of right, title and interest has been decided by
the learned trial Court and since First Appeal No. 174 of 2018 is pending
consideration, question of payment of compensation to the petitioner at
this juncture cannot be considered.
8. However, in order not to cause any prejudice to the appellant, it is
observed that depending on the outcome of the First Appeal No. 174 of
2018, the appellant may renew his prayer for payment of compensation
before the appropriate forum.
9. With this observation, the writ appeal stands disposed of.
Sd/- Sd/-
(Arup Kumar Goswami) (Rakesh Mohan Pandey)
Chief Justice Judge
Brijmohan
