Vinod Agrawal vs Union Of India
2023 Latest Caselaw 346 Chatt

                                            1

                                                                                NAFR
             HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
                                 WPC No. 1787 of 2016

   1. Vinod Agrawal S/o J. P. Agrawal, Aged About 42 Years, R/o C- 304 Ashoka
      Heights, Mowa, Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh
   2. Dileep Agrawal S/o Shri J. P. Agrawal, Aged About 38 Years, R/o C- 304
      Ashoka Heights, Mowa, Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh
                                                                       ---- Petitioners

                                        Versus

   1. Union Of India Through Secretary, Ministry Of Rural Development, New
      Delhi, India.

   2. State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Department Of Revenue And
      Disaster Management, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Naya Raipur,
      District Raipur, Chhattisgarh

   3. District Collector, Raipur, Chhattisgarh

   4. The Competent Authority- Cum- Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue And Land
      Acquisition Officer), Abhanpur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh

   5. Naya Raipur Development Authority Through Its Chief Executive Officer,
      New Rajendra Nagar, Opposite Vijeta Complex, R. D. A. Building (Govind
      Sarang), Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh
                                                           ---- Respondents

For Petitioners : Mr. Ashish Surana, Advocate For Respondent no.1 : Mr. Ramakant Mishra, DSG For State/R-2 to 4 : Mr. Ghanshyam Patel, Govt. Advocate For Respondent no.5 : Mr. Vivek Verma, Advocate

Hon'ble Shri Justice P. Sam Koshy Order On Board 17.01.2023

1. The instant writ petition has been filed seeking for the following reliefs:

i) That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to hold & declare by appropriate writ/writs that the impugned notification No. F-8-28/Seven-1-2014 dated 04.12.2014 (Annexure P-1) is unconstitutional, ultra- vires to the provisions of the Constitution of India and issue contrary to the provisions of Act, 2013.

ii) That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent authorities to issue appropriate

notification notifying factor by which the market value is to be multiplied in the case of rural area for determination of compensation of petitioners' land sought to be acquired.

2. It is pertinent to mention that the notification questioned by the petitioners in

the present writ petition came up for consideration before the Division

Bench of this Court in a bunch of writ petitions, the leading case of which

being WPC No. 1649/2017. The Division Bench vide order dated

30.10.2018 allowed those writ petitions and struck down the said

notification. The relevant portion of the said order of the Division Bench is

reproduced hereinunder:

"11. Drawing analogy from the view taken by the Division Bench of Bombay High Court, which we have quoted with due approval, Court is left with no option but to strike down the notification dated 04.12.2014 contained in Annexure P-1. A direction is issued that keeping in mind the legal position which emerges, the State Government will issue a fresh notification indicating the multiplier factors, in terms of the guidelines laid down in the statute and the judgment."

3. The said order of the Division Bench has not been put to challenge any

further nor has it been set aside by the Supreme Court in any of the

subsequent matters.

4. In view of the same, this Court is bound by the decision of the Division

Bench. Therefore, the instant writ petition, in the light of the decision

rendered by the Division Bench in the aforesaid writ petition i.e. WPC No.

1649/2017 decided on 30.10.2018, deserves to be and is accordingly

allowed. The impugned notification, as a consequence, stands struck down

with consequences to follow.

Sd/-

(P. Sam Koshy) Judge Khatai