Chairman Chhattisgarh Housing Board vs Laxmichand

Heard Mr. Sanjay Patel, learned counsel for the appellant/Housing Board in WA No.41 of 2021 and Mr. Jitendra Pali, learned Deputy Advocate General, appearing for the appellants/State in WA No. 94 of 2021. Also heard Mr. V.V.S. Murthy, learned Senior Counsel, assisted by Mr. Shantanu Kumar, learned counsel, appearing for the private respondents in both the cases.

WA No. 41 of 2021 has been filed by appellants/Housing Board, who were respondents No. 2 and 3 in the writ petition and WA No. 94 of 2021 has been filed by the appellants/State, who were respondents No. 1 and 4 in the writ petition against an order dated 12.12.2019 passed by the learned Single Judge in WPC No.1431 of 2010 (Laxmichand and Others v. State of Chhattisgarh and Others), whereby the learned Single Judge set aside the impugned award dated 28.10.2009 and allowed the writ petition. Being aggrieved with the said order, the present writ appeals have been filed.

Undisputed facts are that the writ petitioners who were erstwhile owners of land, aggrieved by an award dated 28.10.2009 passed in Land Acquisition Proceeding No.190/A-82 whereby, upon acquisition of writ petitioners' land, compensation to the tune of Rs.7,74,057/- was awarded. The respondent / Housing Board came out with the housing project of construction of houses in the city of Raipur. For the purposes of making available land towards development of housing project, at the initiative of the Housing Board, land acquisition proceedings were initiated by the Land Acquisition Officer by issuance of notification under Section 4 (1) of erstwhile Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short 'the Act of 1894'). In the said notification, admittedly, land belonging to writ petitioners, admeasuring 0.405 hectares, situated in khasra no.26 in Shankar Nagar, Raipur was also included. As the project was conceived to be urgent, urgency clause under Section 17 of the Act of 1894 was also invoked and a notification under Section 17 (1) was issued on 29/10/1976, which was followed by declaration under Section 6, vide notification dated 14/01/1977. On 15/04/1977, advance possession was also taken to facilitate development of housing colony. However, thereafter, the Land Acquisition Officer did not proceed further. As no compensation was paid to the petitioners, either before taking possession, as required under Section 17 itself, nor thereafter, nor any award passed by the Land Acquisition Officer, the petitioners finally approached this Court by filing writ petition i.e. W.P. No.1135/2001 seeking relief that the respondent / land acquisition officer be commanded to determine compensation under Section 11 of the Act of 1894 in respect of the land which was taken away from the writ petitioners. Prayer was also made that as no award was passed since the date of notification under Section 4 of the Act of 1894, entire land acquisition proceedings having lapsed under Section 11-A of the Act of 1894, petitioners be declared entitled to return of land.

The learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the learned Single Judge has committed grave illegality while passing the impugned judgment. The learned counsel for the appellants in WA No. 41 of 2021 would rely upon the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Indore Development Authority v. Manohar Lal and Others, reported in (2020) 8 SCC 129 (paragraphs 136 to 148).

Per contra, the learned Senior Counsel for the respondents, however, supports the impugned judgment.

We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the materials available on record.

The learned Single Judge vide order dated 12.12.2019 allowed the writ petition with the following observations:

“27. The inescapable result would, therefore, is that the impugned award is sans merit and has to be set aside and is, accordingly, set aside.

Much injury has been caused to the petitioners due to illegal acts of the respondents. Despite lapse of more than four decades, petitioners are deprived of legitimate compensation to which they were entitled. No doubt that right to property is not a fundamental right nevertheless, this Court has jurisdiction and authority to invoke Article 226 of the Constitution of India when there is deprivation of the property of a citizen in utter violation of the statutory scheme of acquisition of land which entitle the aggrieved to appropriate compensation by determination in accordance with law and not on the basis of rates which were prevalent in the year 1976.

The respondents are obliged and are hereby directed to forthwith initiate proper land acquisition proceedings on the basis of law as applicable on the date and conclude the same expeditiously within an outer limit of six months. A final award shall be passed in the matter and appropriate compensation, as determined on the basis of provisions of the land acquisition laws on the date of initiation of proceedings under the directions, shall be expeditiously paid to the petitioners.

In the present case, looking to the injury and insult which the petitioners have suffered and have been made to come back to this Court time and again, without having been paid anything against acquisition of huge chunk of land, I hereby impose a cost of Rs.2 lakhs on the respondent / State to be paid to the petitioners within a period of 60 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order. This amount will be in addition to the compensation to which the petitioners are entitled on the basis of award that could be passed as per the directions of this Court.

Before parting with the case, it is necessary for this Court to observe that where the respondent / State finds that defect in the proceedings is on account of callous negligence on the part of the Land Acquisition Officer in drawing and passing orders, nothing prevents the State from taking disciplinary action including recovery from such officials.”

After considering the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the parties and upon perusing the impugned order, we notice that the same has been rendered by the learned Single Judge with cogent and justifiable reasons. As such, we are not inclined to interfere with the impugned order. Learned Single Judge while allowing the writ petition by the impugned order has adverted to all the facts of the case. We do not find any fault in the impugned order.

Accordingly, both the writ appeals being devoid of merit are liable to be and are hereby dismissed.