Chattisgarh High Court
Saupatram vs Diwanchand on 8 February, 2023
1
W.A. No. 428 of 2020
AFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
Judgment reserved on : 25/01/2023
Judgment delivered on : 08/02/2023
Writ Appeal No. 428 of 2020
1. Saupatram, S/o. Late Ledhava, Aged About 70 years, R/o. Village
Sendri, Tahsil and District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh
Petitioner/Non-Applicant No.1
2. Chhedilal Sonwani (Died) Through His Legal Heirs as per the Hon'ble
Court Order Dated 23-07-2021
Petitioner/Non-Applicant No.2
2 (A)- Vyas Narayan, S/o Late Chhedilal Sonwani, aged about
35 years, R/o. Sendari, Tehsil & District Bilaspur, C.G.
2 (B)- Sunita, D/o Late Chhedilal Sonwani, aged about 45 years,
R/o Nipaniya, Bilha, Tehsil Bilha & District Bilaspur, C.G.
2 (C)- Kavita, D/o Late Chhedilal Sonwani, aged about 40 years,
R/o Devkirari, Bilha, Tehsil Bilha & District Bilaspur, C.G.
2 (D)- Shitla, D/o Late Chhedilal Sonwani, aged about 32 years,
R/o Darrabhata Seepat, Tehsil & District Bilaspur, C.G.
3. Rajaram Sinha, S/o. Late Hemdutt, Aged about 40 years, R/o. Village
Sendri, Tahsil and District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh
Petitioner/Non-Applicant No.3
4. Banshilal, S/o. Late Gangaprasad Sonwani, Aged about 68 years, R/o.
Village Sendri, Tahsil and District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh
Petitioner/Non-Applicant No.4
---- Appellants
Versus
1. Diwanchand, S/o. Late Gangaprasad Sonwani, Aged about 90 years,
R/o. Village Sendri, Tahsil and District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh
2. Bilaspur Katghora National Highway Authority Declared by Ministry of
Highway, Shipping, Road Transport and Highway, Government of India
2
W.A. No. 428 of 2020
under National Highway Scheme, Through Project Director Bilaspur,
District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh
Respondent No.2/Non-Applicant No.5
3. Office of The Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue) and Competent Officer,
Land Acquisition Bilaspur, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh
Respondent No.3/Non-Applicant No.6
---- Respondents
(Cause-title taken from Case Information System)
Writ Appeal under Section 2 (1) of the Chhattisgarh High Court (Appeal
to Division Bench) Act, 2006
For Appellants : Mr. Manoj Paranjpe, Advocate
For Respondent No. 1 : Mr. Ratnesh Agrawal, Advocate
For Respondent No. 3 : Mr. Jitendra Pali, Deputy Advocate General
Hon'ble Shri Arup Kumar Goswami, Chief Justice
Hon'ble Shri Rakesh Mohan Pandey, Judge
C.A.V. Judgment
Rakesh Mohan Pandey, Judge:
1. By this appeal, the appellants have challenged the order passed in
W.P.(C) No. 1255/2020 dated 22.06.2020 whereby the writ petition
preferred by the appellants has been disposed of affirming the order
passed by the Commissioner/Arbitrator, Bilaspur, Division Bilaspur
dated 06.05.2020 wherein the matter was remitted back to the
Competent Authority (Land Acquisition Officer cum Sub-Divisional
Officer (Revenue), District Bilaspur to decide the matter afresh after
taking into consideration the issues raised by respondent No.1 herein.
2. The case, in a nutshell, is that a proposal was sent by Central
Government for acquisition of certain land situated at Village Sendri,
District Bilaspur for widening of National Highway No. 130 and same
W.A. No. 428 of 2020
was notified in the Official Gazette on 01.09.2007. The notification
under Section 3A of the National Highways Act, 1956 (for short, Act of
1956) was published in the daily Newspaper on 20.09.2017.
Objections were invited. The notification according to Section 3D of the
Act of 1956 was issued on 29.12.2017 and, thereafter, notification
under Section 3G of the Act of 1956 was also issued. The award was
passed on 01.07.2018 in Land Acquisition Case No. 45/A-82/2016-17
by the Competent Authority (Land Acquisition Officer cum Sub-
Divisional Officer (Revenue), District Bilaspur). The names of the
appellants and private respondents appeared at Serial No. 11/A to
11/E. From award, it appears that the compensation amount has
separately been assessed by the Land Acquisition Officer with regard
to the appellants and the respondents.
3. Respondent No.1, being aggrieved by the award, preferred
representation before the Commissioner where he sought a specific
relief to the effect that Survey No. 396/1, area 0.05 acre falls within his
share, on which a house is situated, but the compensation amount has
not been assessed according to the market value and guidelines
issued by the Central Assessment Board. He has further stated that
his land ought to have been measured by taking the measurement of
the land per square meter according to the Act of 1956 and its
rehabilitation plan.
4. Reply was filed by the appellants herein raising objection that the said
court has no jurisdiction to entertain the application as the application
has not been moved mentioning specific section of Arbitration and
Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short, Act of 1996) and the Act of 1956.
W.A. No. 428 of 2020
5. The learned Commissioner vide order dated 06.05.2020 held that the
award passed by the court below is to be considered and not the
procedure adopted by it and according to notification of the
Government of India dated 20.12.2019, the Divisional Commissioner
has been appointed as Arbitrator and he has been conferred with the
power to decide the dispute between the parties. It is further observed
by the Divisional Commissioner that house is situated over Survey No.
396/1 belonging to the respondent no. 1, adequate compensation has
not been awarded and he has been treated as owner of the property,
but the findings recorded by the Land Acquisition Officer requires re-
consideration. Thus, the Divisional Commissioner remitted back the
matter to Land Acquisition Officer-Cum-Sub-Divisional Officer
(Revenue), District Bilaspur to re-consider the issues and to pass
award in accordance with law.
6. The appellants herein preferred W.P.(C) No. 1255/2020 before the
learned Single Judge challenging the order passed by the Divisional
Commissioner, Bilaspur dated 06.05.2020, inter alia, on the ground
that according to Section 3G of the Act of 1956, the Divisional
Commissioner has no power to remit back the matter to the Land
Acquisition Officer-Cum-Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue), Bilaspur.
The learned Single Judge after due consideration held that it would be
more appropriate for the parties to the dispute to approach the Land
Acquisition Officer-Cum-Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue), Bilaspur to
put-forth their claims in the light of the directions given by the
Divisional Commissioner. It was also observed that the Land
Acquisition Officer Cum Sub Divisional Officer shall explore the
W.A. No. 428 of 2020
possibility of the matter being resolved amicably, since the dispute is
between family members. The writ petition was disposed of affirming
the view taken by the Divisional Commissioner.
7. Mr. Manoj Paranjpe, learned counsel for the appellants, would submit
that there was no dispute regarding the title or ownership. Respondent
No.1 herein had preferred an application before the Divisional
Commissioner, Bilaspur for enhancement of compensation amount as
Survey No. 396/1, admeasuring 0.05 acre, is situated beside the
National Highway, therefore, the Land Acquisition Officer ought to have
applied the guidelines issued by the Central Assessment Board. He
would further submit that there is no provision for remand in the Act of
1956 and the Divisional Commissioner was under obligation to decide
the dispute raised in the application within the four corners of the
applicable laws.
8. On the other hand, Mr. Ratnesh Agrawal, learned counsel for
respondent No.1 as well as Mr. Jitendra Pali, Deputy Advocate
General, appearing for respondent No.3, would submit that the parties
are brothers and sisters and in order to settle the dispute, the matter
was remitted back to the Land Acquisition Officer. The order passed by
the Divisional Commissioner has been affirmed by the learned Single
Judge and there is no scope of interference.
9. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the
records with utmost circumspection.
10. It will be advantageous to go through the provisions of Section 3G of
the Act of 1956 and same is reproduced herein below:-
W.A. No. 428 of 2020
3G. Determination of amount payable as
compensation -
(1) Where any land is acquired under this Act, there
shall be paid an amount which shall be determined by
an order of the competent authority.
(2) Where the right of user or any right in the nature of
an easement on, any land is acquired under this Act,
there shall be paid an amount to the owner and any
other person whose right of enjoyment in that land has
been affected in any manner whatsoever by reason of
such acquisition an amount calculated at ten per cent,
of the amount determined under sub-section (1), for
that land.
(3) Before proceeding to determine the amount under
sub-section (1) or sub-section (2), the competent
authority shall give a public notice published in two
local newspapers, one of which will be in a vernacular
language inviting claims from all persons interested in
the land to be acquired.
(4) Such notice shall state the particulars of the land
and shall require all persons interested in such land to
appear in person or by an agent or by a legal
practitioner referred to in sub-section (2) of section
3C, before the competent authority, at a time and
place and to state the nature of their respective
interest in such land.
(5) If the amount determined by the competent
authority under sub-section (1) or sub-section (2) is
not acceptable to either of the parties, the amount
shall, on an application by either of the parties, be
determined by the arbitrator to be appointed by the
Central Government.
(6) Subject to the provisions of this Act, the provisions
of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (26 of
1996) shall apply to every arbitration under this Act.
W.A. No. 428 of 2020
(7) The competent authority or the arbitrator while
determining the amount under sub-section (1) or sub-
section (5), as the case may be, shall take into
consideration--
(a) the market value of the land on the date of
publication of the notification under section 3A;
(b) the damage, if any, sustained by the person
interested at the time of taking possession of the
land, by reason of the severing of such land from
other land;
(c) the damage, if any, sustained by the person
interested at the time of taking possession of the
land, by reason of the acquisition injuriously
affecting his other immovable property in any
manner, or his earnings;
(d) if, in consequences of the acquisition of the
land, the person interested is compelled to
change his residence or place of business, the
reasonable expenses, if any, incidental to such
change.
11. From the record, it appears that the notification was published in the
daily newspaper under Section 3A of the Act of 1956 on 20.09.2017,
objections were invited, according to Section 3D of the Act of 1956
notification was issued on 29.12.2017, thereafter, the notification was
also issued under Section 3G of the Act of 1956 and award was
passed in favour of the appellants and respondent No.1 by the Land
Acquisition Officer on 01.07.2018. Respondent No. 1 being unsatisfied
with the award, preferred an application under the provisions of Act of
1996 and the Act of 1956 before the Divisional Commissioner, Bilaspur
seeking relief to enhance the compensation as his case has not been
considered properly. The learned Divisional Commissioner after taking
W.A. No. 428 of 2020
note of the ground raised by respondent No.1, remitted back the
matter to the Land Acquisition Officer to decide the case afresh after
affording proper opportunity to the parties. Present is not a case where
any dispute regarding title or ownership is involved. After passing of
the award, respondent No.1 has moved application before Divisional
Commissioner only for enhancement of the compensation as the same
was not determined in accordance with law. If there was any infirmity
in the order passed by the Land Acquisition Officer-Cum-Sub-
Divisional Officer (Revenue), Bilaspur, the Divisional Commissioner
ought to have decided the case on the basis of the material placed
before it. The learned Single Judge has also not noticed the prayer
made by respondent No.1 in his application. No dispute was raised by
the respondent No. 1 regarding the share or title of the property and
relief is confined only with regard to enhancement of compensation,
particularly, for house situated over Survey No. 396/1, owned by
respondent No.1. Therefore, there was no reason or occasion for the
Divisional Commissioner to remit back the matter to the Land
Acquisition Officer-Cum-Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue), Bilaspur,
particularly, when there is no such provision in the Section 3G of the
Act of 1956.
12. In the light of the above discussion, the order passed by the learned
Single Judge in W.P.(C) No. 1255/2020 dated 22.06.2020 and the
order passed by the Divisional Commissioner dated 06.05.2020 are
hereby set aside. The matter is remitted back to the Divisional
Commissioner, Bilaspur to restore the matter to its original number and
to decide the same afresh after affording proper opportunity of hearing
W.A. No. 428 of 2020
to the parties, strictly in accordance with law, within a period of two
months from receipt of a copy of this order.
13. With the aforesaid observations, this writ appeal is disposed of.
Sd/- Sd/-
(Arup Kumar Goswami) (Rakesh Mohan Pandey)
Chief Justice Judge
vatti
