Chief Engineer/Executive ... vs Nanhu Ram Agrawal
2023 Latest Caselaw 163 Chatt

                                    1

                                                                     NAFR
           HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
                      Writ Appeal No. 278 of 2020

Chief Engineer/Executive Engineer Public Works Department, National

Highway Area, Pensionbada, Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh


                                                              ---- Appellant


                                Versus


1.   Nanhu Ram Agrawal S/o Late Manager Ram Agrawal Aged About

     64 Years R/o A-E- 5, Kundla, Vasundhara City, Kharsiya Road,

     Ambikapur, District Surguja (C.G.)


2.   State of Chhattisgarh Through Its Secretary, Revenue Department,

     Mantralaya, Atal Nagar, Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.)


3.   The Collector, Surguja District Surguja (C.G.)


4.   The Sub-Divisional Officer Cum Prescribed Authority, Land

     Acquisition, Ambikapur, District Surguja (C.G.)


5.   The Upper Commissioner, Surguja Division, Ambikapur, District

     Surguja (C.G.)


                                                       ---- Respondents

(Cause-title taken from Case Information System)

For Appellant : Mr. Ramakant Mishra, Deputy Solicitor General.

For Respondent No. 1 : Mr. Pushpendra Kumar Patel, Advocate. For Respondents No. 2 to 5 : Mr. Trivikram Nayak, Panel Lawyer.

Hon'ble Shri Arup Kumar Goswami, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Arvind Singh Chandel, Judge Judgment on Board Per Arup Kumar Goswami, Chief Justice

09.01.2023

Heard Mr. Ramakant Mishra, learned Deputy Solicitor General for

the appellant. Also heard Mr. Pushpendra Kumar Patel, learned counsel,

appearing for respondent No. 1 and Mr. Trivikram Nayak, learned panel

lawyer, appearing for respondents No. 2 to 5.

2. I.A. No. 1 of 2020 is an application for condonation of delay of 181

days in preferring the connected appeal against an order dated

29.07.2019 passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition (C) No.

2581 of 2019.

3. The order dated 29.07.2019 reads as follows:

"Heard.

1. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that

initially the land was acquired on 16.09.2016 and the award

was subsequently passed under the National Highways

Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act of 1956') on

17.10.2016. The petitioners being aggrieved by such

award, they referred the issue to the Arbitrator under Sub

Section 5 of Section 3G of the Act of 1956 wherein the

amended award was passed by the Arbitrator on

25.10.2017. However, no interest was awarded from the

date of acquisition i.e. from 16.09.2016. Learned counsel

further submits that at present the petitioners may be given

liberty to make a representation to the Respondent No. 5

so that the issue of interest may be decided.

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.

3. With the above observation, the petition is

disposed of"

4. While not opposing the prayer for condonation of delay, Mr. Patel

submits that the order dated 29.07.2019 had been implemented by an

order dated 27.09.2019 passed by the Additional Commissioner, Surguja,

and therefore, this appeal is rendered infructuous.

5. Mr. Patel also submits that this case is squarely covered by an

order dated 05.07.2022 passed in Writ Appeal No. 315 of 2020.

6. Delay stands condoned. I.A. No. 1 of 2020 is allowed and

disposed of.

7. In this appeal, the appellant has also prayed for setting aside the

order dated 27.09.2019.

8. Mr. Mishra does not refute the contention advanced by Mr. Patel.

9. In the order dated 05.07.2022 passed in Writ Appeal No. 315 of

2020, this Court had observed as follows:

"12. On the pointed query of the Court, Mr. Ramakant

Mishra, learned Assistant Solicitor General and Mr. Tushar

Dhar 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.

13. Prayer to quash the order dated 27.09.2019

passed by the Additional Commissioner, Surguja, in this

appeal is not tenable in law.

14. No appeal has been preferred against the order

passed in WPC No. 257 of 2020.

15. 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."

9. In view of the submissions made by the learned counsel for the

parties, the present appeal is dismissed as infructuous as there is no

surviving cause of action. However, the appellant is at liberty to assail the

order dated 27.09.2019, if permissible in law, before the appropriate

forum, if so advised.

                         Sd/-                                          Sd/-
                 (Arup Kumar Goswami)                         (Arvind Singh Chandel)
                      Chief Justice                                   Judge



Brijmohan