Jagmohan Chandrakar (Died) Through ... vs State Of Chhattisgarh
2025 Latest Caselaw 3582 Chatt

1.4 - (D) Yashoda D/o Late Jagmohan Chandrakar Aged About 55 Years R/o Village Palod, Patwari Halka No.21, Tahsil- Arang, Distt. Raipur, Chhattisgarh.

1.5 - (E) Ishwari D/o Late Jagmohan Chandrakar Aged About 49 Years R/o Village Palod, Patwari Halka No.21, Tahsil- Arang, Distt. Raipur, Chhattisgarh.

1.6 - (F) Revti D/o Late Jagmohan Chandrakar Aged About 47 Years R/o Village Palod, Patwari Halka No.21, Tahsil- Arang, Distt. Raipur, Chhattisgarh.

1.7 - (G) Bimla D/o Late Jagmohan Chandrakar Aged About 45 Years R/o Village Palod, Patwari Halka No.21, Tahsil- Arang, Distt. Raipur, Chhattisgarh.

1.8 - (H) Lakshmi D/o Late Jagmohan Chandrakar Aged About 35 Years R/o Village Palod, Patwari Halka No.21, Tahsil- Arang, Distt. Raipur, Chhattisgarh.

1.9 - (I) Anita D/o Late Jagmohan Chandrakar Aged About 30 Years R/o Village Palod, Patwari Halka No.21, Tahsil- Arang, Distt. Raipur, Chhattisgarh.

2. Tanwar Baghel S/o Ram Chandrakar Aged About 42 Years R/o Village Palod, Patwari Halka No.21, Tah Arang, Distt Raipur, C G, District :

Raipur, Chhattisgarh

3. Hiralal Baghel S/o Laxman Baghel Aged About 36 Years R/o Village Palod, Patwari Halka No.21, Tah Arang, Distt Raipur, C G, District :

Raipur, Chhattisgarh

4. Gopal Yadav S/o Govardhan Yadav Aged About 36 Years R/o Village Palod, Patwari Halka No.21, Tah Arang, Distt Raipur, C G, District :

Raipur, Chhattisgarh

5. Radheshyam Yadav S/o Derhu Yadav Aged About 40 Years R/o Village Palod, Patwari Halka No.21, Tah Arang, Distt Raipur, C G, District :

Raipur, Chhattisgarh

6. Lalbahadur Chelak S/o Dwarika Chelak Aged About 33 Years R/o Village Palod, Patwari Halka No.21, Tah Arang, Distt Raipur, C G, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh

7. Omprakash Chandrakar S/o Shri Purani Aged About 43 Years R/o Village Palod, Patwari Halka No.21, Tah Arang, Distt Raipur, C G, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh

8. Jadram Sahu S/o Shri Khorbahara Aged About 52 Years R/o Village Palod, Patwari Halka No.21, Tah Arang, Distt Raipur, C G, District :

Raipur, Chhattisgarh

9. Lakhanlal S/o Basawan Aged About 58 Years R/o Village Palod, Patwari Halka No.21, Tah Arang, Distt Raipur, C G, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh

10. Yadram S/o Shri Jagdish Aged About 41 Years R/o Village Palod, Patwari Halka No.21, Tah Arang, Distt Raipur, C G, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh

11. Gopal Sahu S/o Shri Fagua Sahu Aged About 55 Years R/o Village Palod, Patwari Halka No.21, Tah Arang, Distt Raipur, C G, District :

Raipur, Chhattisgarh

12. Dwarika Dewangan S/o Lt Roopelal Aged About 56 Years R/o Village Palod, Patwari Halka No.21, Tah Arang, Distt Raipur, C G, District :

Raipur, Chhattisgarh

13. Maharin W/o Lt Roopelal Aged About 75 Years R/o Village Palod, Patwari Halka No.21, Tah Arang, Distt Raipur, C G, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh

14. Derharam Dewangan S/o Lt Roopelal Aged About 58 Years R/o Village Palod, Patwari Halka No.21, Tah Arang, Distt Raipur, C G, District :

Raipur, Chhattisgarh

15. Hem Kumar S/o Shri Derharam Aged About 35 Years R/o Village Palod, Patwari Halka No.21, Tah Arang, Distt Raipur, C G, District :

Raipur, Chhattisgarh

16. Narendra Kumar Banjare S/o Shri Hiralal Aged About 34 Years R/o Village Palod, Patwari Halka No.21, Tah Arang, Distt Raipur, C G, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh

17. Kartik Ram Patel S/o Shri Gyan Marar Aged About 56 Years R/o Village Palod, Patwari Halka No.21, Tah Arang, Distt Raipur, C G, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh

18. Santosh Kumar Chelak S/o Shri Dwarika Aged About 36 Years R/o Village Palod, Patwari Halka No.21, Tah Arang, Distt Raipur, C G, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh

19. Sukhbati W/o Shri Kejuram Aged About 70 Years R/o Village Palod, Patwari Halka No.21, Tah Arang, Distt Raipur, C G, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh

20. Pyari Patel (Died) Through Lrs.- (As Per Hon'ble Court Order Dated 14-11-2024) 20.1 - (A) Ghanshyam S/o Late Pyari Patel Aged About 60 Years R/o Village Palod, Patwari Halka No.21, Tahsil- Arang, Distt. Raipur, Chhattisgarh 20.2 - (B) Rohit S/o Late Pyari Patel Aged About 55 Years R/o Village Palod, Patwari Halka No.21, Tahsil- Arang, Distt. Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 20.3 - (C) Ramkumar S/o Late Pyari Patel Aged About 50 Years R/o Village Palod, Patwari Halka No.21, Tahsil- Arang, Distt. Raipur, Chhattisgarh.

20.4 - (D) Bhukhan S/o Late Pyari Patel Aged About 45 Years R/o Village Palod, Patwari Halka No.21, Tahsil- Arang, Distt. Raipur, Chhattisgarh.

21. Sadhuram Patel S/o Manbodhi Aged About 36 Years R/o Village Palod, Patwari Halka No.21, Tah Arang, Distt Raipur, C G, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh

22. Kodu S/o Shri Harchand Satnami Aged About 60 Years R/o Village Palod, Patwari Halka No.21, Tah Arang, Distt Raipur, C G, District :

Raipur, Chhattisgarh

23. Subelal @ Chabilal Banjare S/o Shri Khorbahara Aged About 65 Years R/o Village Palod, Patwari Halka No.21, Tah Arang, Distt Raipur, C G, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh

24. Tiharu Yadav S/o Shri Khorbahara Aged About 50 Years R/o Village Palod, Patwari Halka No.21, Tah Arang, Distt Raipur, C G, District :

Raipur, Chhattisgarh

25. Lilesh Dewangan S/o Shri Bhagwani Kosta Aged About 34 Years R/o Village Palod, Patwari Halka No.21, Tah Arang, Distt Raipur, C G, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh

26. Budha Bai W/o Sukhchand Satnami Aged About 70 Years R/o Village Palod, Patwari Halka No.21, Tah Arang, Distt Raipur, C G, District :

Raipur, Chhattisgarh

27. Ravi @ Ravindra S/o Shri Anjorilal Aged About 32 Years R/o Village Palod, Patwari Halka No.21, Tah Arang, Distt Raipur, C G, District :

Raipur, Chhattisgarh

28. Ashsih Ratre S/o Shri Khorbahara Aged About 58 Years R/o Village Palod, Patwari Halka No.21, Tah Arang, Distt Raipur, C G, District :

Raipur, Chhattisgarh

29. Ram Gulam Chandrakar S/o Shri Sitaram Aged About 80 Years R/o Village Palod, Patwari Halka No.21, Tah Arang, Distt Raipur, C G, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh

30. Ramadhar Chandrakar S/o Shri Dayaram Aged About 58 Years R/o Village Palod, Patwari Halka No.21, Tah Arang, Distt Raipur, C G, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh

---Petitioners Versus

1. State Of Chhattisgarh S/o Through Secretary, Department Of Housing And Environment, Mantralaya, Naya Raipur, Dist Raipur, Chhattisgarh

2. Department Of Agriculture And Animal Husbandry, Through Secretary, Mantralaya, Naya Raipur, Dist Raipur, C G, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh

3. District Collector Collectorate, Raipur, Dist Raipur, C G, District :

Raipur, Chhattisgarh

4. Naya Raipur Development Authority Through Its Chief Executive Officer, New Rajendra Nagar, Infront Of Vijeta Complex, R.D.A. Building, Raipur, Distt Raipur, C G, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh

5. Land Acquisition Officer/sub Divisional Officer, Tahsil Aarang-

Abhanpur, Civil And Revenue Distt Raipur, Cg, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh

--- Respondents (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) For Petitioners : Mr. Sanjay Kumar Agrawal, Advocate For State : Mr. R.S. Marhas, Additional Advocate General For NRDA : Mr. Sumesh Bajaj, Advocate

Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board

09/04/2025

1. In these petitions, the petitioners have challenged the entire land

acquisition proceedings, the notification issued under Sections 4 and 6

of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short 'Act 1894') and the award.

The petitioners have further sought direction to the respondent

authorities to constitute a Committee under Section 17-A of the CG

Nagar Tatha Gram Nivesh Adhiniyam, 1973 (for short 'Adhiniyam

1973) and to decide the objections. The petitioners are residents of

Village Palod, Tehsil Aarang, District Raipur and Village Bendri, Tehsil

Abhanpur, District Raipur. On 03.01.2002 and 15.01.2002, the

Department of Housing and Environment, Government of Chhattisgarh

issued orders for the acquisition of land for the development of Naya

Raipur. On 25.08.2005 another order was issued and the transfer of

lands of 07 villages including villages Palod & Bendri was restricted.

Vide modified order dated 31.07.2006, the restriction was lifted for the

transfer of lands in favour of NRDA. At the request of the NRDA, the

Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue), Aarang/Abhanpur registered the

land acquisition cases on 15.09.2011. The land acquisition

proceedings were proceeded by the Land Acquisition Officer in Land

Acquisition Case No. 42/A-82 Year 2010-2011 - Village Palod, Patwari

Halka No. 21, Tahsil Aarang (WPC No. 1174/2014); Land Acquisition

Case No. 51/A-82 Year 2010-2011 - Village Bendri, Patwari Halka no.

18, Tahsil Abhanpur (WPC No. 1460/2014) and Land Acquisition Case

No. 42/A-82 Year 2010-2011 - Village Palod, Patwari Halka No. 21,

Tahsil Aarang (WPC No 1164/2014). The details are reproduced herein

below:-

Chaindas Patle & Ors. Vs. State of Chhhattisgarh & Ors.

   Sr.            Dates                                 Events
       1      19.09.2011    Notification u/s 4 of the Land Acquisition Act
                            (Annexure P/2)
       2      21.09.2011     Notification u/s 4 published in two daily
                             newspapers namely, Nayi Duniya and Hari


                      Bhoomi. (Referred to in Annexure P/6)
 3      27.06.2012    Objection u/s 5A decided by the Competent
                      Authority. (Referred to in Annexure P/6)
 4       06.07.2012 Notification/Declaration issued u/s 6 of the
                      Land Acquisition Act (Annexure P/7)
 5       01.06.2013 Final     Award     passed     under   the   Land
                      Acquisition Act (Annexure P/8)
 6      22.06.2014    The instant writ petition filed.

Jagmohan Chandrakar & Ors. Vs. State of Chhhattisgarh & Ors.

Sr.        Dates                              Events
 1     19.09.2011     Notification u/s 4 of the Land Acquisition Act
                      (Annexure P/2)
 2     21.09.2011     Notification u/s 4 published in two daily
                      newspapers namely, Nayi Duniya and Hari
                      Bhoomi. (Referred to in Annexure P/5)
 3     27.06.2012     Objection u/s 5A decided by Competent
                      Authority. (Referred to in Annexure P/5)
 4     06.07.2012     Notification/Declaration issued u/s 6 of the
                      Land Acquisition Act (Annexure P/6)
 5     01.06.2013     Final   Award     passed     under   the   Land
                      Acquisition Act (Annexure P/7)
 6      23.06.2014   The instant writ petition filed.

G. Venkat Reddy & Ors. Vs. State of Chhhattisgarh & Ors.

Sr.        Dates                              Events
 1     29.10.2011     Notification u/s 4 published in two daily
                      newspapers namely, Dainik Bhaskar and Hari
                      Bhoomi. (Referred to in Annexure P/3)
 2     19.07.2012     Objection u/s 5A decided by Competent
                      Authority. (Kindly refer Para 8.10 of the
                      petition)
 3     24.07.2012     Notification/Declaration issued u/s 6 of the


                             Land Acquisition Act and           published   in
                             newspapers on 25.07.2012 (Annexure P/4)
         4      29.05.2013   Final   Award     passed     under   the   Land
                             Acquisition Act (Annexure P/6)
         5      30.07.2014   The instant writ petition filed.

From the above chart, it is apparent that final awards were

passed by the Land Acquisition Officer in the month of May & June,

2013, whereas these petitions were filed in the month of June & July,

2014.

2. Mr. Sanjay Kumar Agrawal, learned counsel appearing for the

petitioners would argue that Naya Raipur Development Plan was

illegally notified without constituting a Committee according to the

provisions of Section 17A of the Adhiniyam 1973. He would submit that

objections were also not heard and decided. He would contend that in

the Notification issued under Section 4A of the Act, 1894, the purpose

for the acquisition was not assigned. He would further submit that the

objections raised by the petitioners were considered and decided by

the Sub Divisional Officer-Cum-Land Acquisition Officer, who was not

competent as the competent authority is the District Collector and in

this regard, he placed reliance on the judgment passed by the Hon'ble

Supreme Court in the matter of Kamal Trading Private Limited (Now

Known as Manav Investment and Trading Company Limited) Vs.

State of West Bengal and Others reported in 2012 (2) SCC 25. He

would further contend that the Notification issued under Section 4 of

the Act, 1894 was not affixed at a conspicuous place at the Gram

Panchayat Office and the petitioners were not informed through the

beating of the drum. He would further argue that the objections raised

by the petitioners under Section 5A of the Act, 1894 were rejected

without application of mind. He would also submit that the Sub

Divisional Officer was not competent to reject their objections and in

this regard, he referred to Section 5A of the Act, 1894. He would also

argue that the lands have been acquired by the Private Company,

therefore, the acquisition is bad-in-law. In support of his arguments, he

placed reliance on the judgments passed by the Hon'ble Supreme

Court in the matters of Madhya Pradesh Housing Board Vs. Mohd.

Shafi and Others reported in (1992) 2 SCC 168; Kulsum R.

Nadiadwala Vs. State of Maharashtra and Others reported in (2012)

6 SCC 348; J & K Housing Board and Another Vs. Kunwar Sanjay

Krishan Kaul and Others reported in (2011) 10 SCC 714; Union of

India and Others Vs. Gopaldas Bhagwan Das and Others reported

in (2023) 12 SCC 531; Munshi Singh and Others Vs. Union of India

reported in (1973) 2 SCC 337 and Urban Improvement Trust Vs.

Vidya Devi and Others reported in 2024 SCC Online SC 3725.

3. On the other hand, Mr. Sumesh Bajaj, learned counsel appearing for

the NRDA would submit that earlier a writ petition was filed for the

quashment of the Notification issued under Sections 4 and 6 of the

Act, 1894 and relief was also sought for the reconstitution of the

appropriate Committee under Section 17A of the Adhiniyam, 1973. He

would contend that the petitioners in the present petitions are

members of the petitioners'-Samiti in WPC No. 6782/2011. He would

contend that the several petitioners willingly sold their property by

mutual consent and accepted the compensation. He would further

contend that the lands have been acquired for the construction of New

Capital. He would also contend that 16 petitioners had preferred their

statutory objections under Section 5A of the Act 1894 and those

objections were decided by the Competent Authority. He would further

argue that at the time of preparation of the development plan of Naya

Raipur under the provisions of the Adhiniyam, 1973, only 02

petitioners raised their objection. He would further state that private

individuals have to give way to the public interests for the

implementation of the Development Plan. He would also state that

after a lapse of 13 years from the date of the award, things have

become irreversible and the only right available to the petitioners

would be for compensation, which has already been deposited with

the Land Acquisition Officer. He would also argue submit that with

regard to enhancement of compensation or interest part, the

petitioners have the remedy to approach the appropriate authority

according to the provisions of Sections 64 and 65 of the Right to Fair

Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation

and Resettlement Act, 2013. He would also contend that the power

under Section 5A of the Act 1894 has been conferred with the Sub

Divisional Officer. He would also submit that the Sub Divisional Officer

was the Competent Authority to act and discharge functions of the

Land Acquisition Officer according to a Notification dated 15.02.1999

issued by the erstwhile State of Madhya Pradesh and this Notification

has been adopted by the State of Chhattisgarh vide Notification dated

03.12.2009. He would further submit that objections raised by the

petitioners were decided by the Land Acquisition Officer/Sub Divisional

Officer in an objective manner. He would further contend that the

provisions of Section 4(1) of the Act, 1894 were duly complied with by

the Land Acquisition Officer. He would submit that the Notification

under Section 4 of the Act 1894 was published on 19.09.2011. The

Notification was published in two daily newspapers namely Nayi

Duniya and Hari Bhoomi on 21.09.2011. The objections under Section

5A of the Act, 1894 were invited and decided by the Competent

Authority on 27.06.2012 and thereafter, a Notification under Section 6

of the Act 1894 was published on 06.07.2012. He would also submit

that the petitioners failed to produce documents to demonstrate that

the Notification was not affixed in a conspicuous place of Gram

Panchayat and the petitioners were not informed properly through the

beating of the drum. He would contend that the objections raised by

the petitioners before the Competent Authority make it clear that they

were aware of the Notification issued under Section 4 of the Act, 1894.

He would further submit that the final awards were passed by the Land

Acquisition Officer on 01.06.2013 and 29.05.2013 and some of the

petitioners accepted the compensation. He would also submit that

these petitions deserve to be dismissed. In support of his arguments,

he placed reliance on the judgment passed by this Court in WPC No.

1489 of 2012 parties being Shiv Balak Mishra & Another Vs. State

of Chhattisgarh & Others, dated 20.01.2025 and WPC No. 358 of

2016 parties being Purshottam Ahuja Vs. State of Chhattisgarh &

Others and other connected matters, dated 18.07.2016 passed by

the coordinate bench of this Court.

4. Mr. R.S. Marhas, learned Additional Advocate General appearing for

the State would support the contention made by Mr. Sumesh Bajaj.

5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the

documents placed on the record.

6. Mr. Sanjay Kumar Agrawal, learned counsel appearing for the

petitioners has argued that the Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue) was

not competent to act as the Land Acquisition Officer and only the

District Collector was competent. It is also argued that the Land

Acquisition proceedings were drawn by the Sub Divisional Officer

(Revenue), Aarang/Abhanppur and the Collector Raipur only put his

signature. It is also contended that the Sub Divisional Officer

(Revenue) Aarang/Abhanpur was not competent to decide the

objections raised under Section 5A of the Act, 1894. The State, in its

return, have categorically stated vide Notification dated 15.02.1999

issued by the erstwhile State of Madhya Pradesh the power was

conferred on the Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue) to discharge

functions of the Land Acquisition Officer. It is also stated that the

Notification dated 15.02.1999 has been adopted by the State of

Chhattisgarh vide Notification dated 03.12.2009.

7. A perusal of the note sheet and pleadings would make it clear that

Notifications have been issued by the erstwhile State of Madhya

Pradesh and State of Chhattisgarh whereby the power of the Land

Acquisition Officer has been conferred with the Sub Divisional Officer

(Revenue) and those notifications have not been challenged by the

petitioners in these petitions. Therefore, the contention made by

learned counsel for the petitioners appears to be misconceived.

8. Vide Notification dated 15.02.1999 and 03.12.2009 the power has

been conferred with the Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue) to decide the

objection under Section 5A of the Act, 1894 raised by the land

oustees. The Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue) Aarang/Abhanpur have

exercised the power under Sections 4, 5 and 6 of the Act, 1894

according to the above-stated notifications, therefore, it can safely be

held that the Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue), Aarang/Abhanpur

rightly decided the objections filed under Section 5A of the Act, 1894.

9. It is also argued by Mr. Sanjay Kumar Agrawal that the Notification

under Section 4 (1) of the Act, 1894 was issued by the Sub Divisional

Officer (Revenue) and the then Collector, Raipur put his signature in a

mechanical manner without application of mind. Section 4 (1) of the

Act, 1894 states that whenever it appears to the appropriate

Government that the land in any locality is needed or is likely to be

needed for any public purpose or for a company, a notification to that

effect shall be published in the Official Gazette.

As already held the power was conferred with the Sub Divisional

Officer (Revenue) to discharge functions of the Land Acquisition

Officer which includes the right to publish the notification under

Section 4(1) of the Act, 1894. The notification under Section 4 of the

Act, 1894 was published in 02 daily newspapers. Copy of the

notification was affixed to the Notice Board of the respective Gram

Panchayats. The land oustees were duly informed in this regard and

this fact is evident from objections raised under Section 5A of the Act,

1894 by the villagers. The Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue) also

decided the objections raised by the land oustees and thus, the

contention made by Mr. Sanjay Kumar Agrawal is not sustainable.

Mr. Sanjay Kumar Agrawal has placed reliance on the

judgments passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of

Mohd. Shafi (supra); Kulsum R. Nadiadwala (supra); Kunwar

Sanjay Krishan Kaul (supra) and Gopaldas Bhagwan Das (supra),

wherein it is held that the publicity of Section 4 notice is a mandatory

requirement. If a notification u/s 4 is defective and does not comply

with the requirements of the Act, it vitiates the notification and renders

all subsequent proceedings connected with the acquisition bad in law.

The relevant para-8 of the case of Mohd. Shafi (supra) is reproduced

herein below:-

"8. It is settled law that the process of acquisition has to start with a notification issued under Section 4 of the Act, which is mandatory, and even in cases of urgency, the issuance of notification under Section 4 is a condition precedent to the exercise of any further powers under the Act. Any notification which is aimed at depriving a man of his property, issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act has to be strictly construed and any serious lapse on the part of the acquiring authority would vitiate the proceedings and cannot be ignored by the courts. The object of issuing a notification under Section 4 of the Act is twofold. First, it is a public announcement by the government and a public notice by the Collector to the effect that the land, as specified therein, is needed or is likely to be needed by the government for the "public purpose"

mentioned therein; and secondly, it authorises the departmental officers or officers of the local authority, as the case may be to do all such acts as are mentioned in Section 4(2) of the Act. The notification has to be published in the locality and particularly persons likely to be affected by the proposal have to be put on notice that such an activity is afoot. The notification is, thus, required to give with sufficient clarity not only the "public purpose" for which the acquisition proceedings are being commenced but also the "locality" where the land is situate with as full a description as possible of the land proposed to be acquired to enable the "interested" persons to know as to which land is being acquired and for what purpose and to take further steps under the Act by filing objections etc., since it is open to such persons to canvass the non-suitability of the land for the alleged "public purpose" also. If a notification under Section 4(1) of the Act is defective and does not comply with the requirements of the Act, it not only vitiates the notification, but also renders all subsequent proceedings connected with the acquisition, bad."

10. In the present case, notifications were issued under Section 4 (1) of

the Act, 1894; notifications were published in 02 daily Hindi

newspapers; notifications were affixed in the Notice Board of the

respective Gram Panchayats; notifications were published in the

Official Gazette too and villagers were also informed and thus, there

was strict compliance of provisions of Section 4 of the Act, 1894.

11. Mr. Sanjay Kumar Agrawal has further argued that a ban was put on

the sale and purchase of lands in the Naya Raipur area including

village Palod since 2005 and it materially affected the petitioners. The

ban was put by the State authorities to avoid a multiplicity of litigation

and illegal transactions. The compensation was calculated according

to the current market rate, therefore, the ground raised by Mr. Sanjay

Kumar Agrawal is hereby rejected.

12. It is argued by Mr. Sanjay Kumar Agrawal that a specific purpose for

the acquisition of lands was not mentioned in the notification issued

under Section 4 (1) and Section 6(1) of the Act, 1894. In this regard he

placed reliance on the matter of Munshi Singh (supra), where it is

held that if the public purpose stated in Section 4(1) of the Act, 1894

notification is not clearly mentioned, it would vitiate the land

acquisition.

13. A perusal of the notification issued under Section 4 of the Act, 1894

would show that the public purpose was clearly disclosed in

notifications and lands were acquired for the construction of a new

Capital of the State of Chhattisgarh. It is also evident from the record

that after the issuance of the notification under section 4 of the Act,

1894 a writ petition was filed for quashment of the notification issued

under Sections 4 and 6 of the Act, 1894 and relief was sought for re-

constitution of the appropriate Committee under Section 17A of the

Adhiniyam, 1973. Accordingly, the Committee was constituted and

objections were decided.

14. In the present case, awards were passed by the Land Acquisition

Officer dated 01.06.2013 and 29.05.2013. Some of the petitioners

have already accepted the amount of compensation. The petitions

were filed by the petitioners on 22.06.2014 (WPC No 1174/2014),

23.06.2014 (WPC No. 1164/2014) and 30.07.2014 (WPC No.

1460/2014) challenging the land acquisition proceedings and the

award.

15. Learned counsel for the petitioners also argued that proper

compensation had not been paid. It appears that on one hand the

petitioners are challenging the land acquisition proceedings including

the award and on the other hand, they are seeking enhancement of

compensation. It is a well settled principle of law that the party cannot

approbate and reprobate at the same time. For enhancement of

compensation, the petitioners have an efficacious statutory remedy.

16. Taking into consideration the above-discussed facts, in the opinion of

this Court, no case is made for interference.

17. Consequently, these petitions fail and are hereby dismissed. No

costs.

Sd/-

(Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge

vatti