Chattisgarh High Court
Ram Krishna Bhargava (Petitioner In ... vs The State Of Chhattisgarh on 2 December, 2024
Author: Parth Prateem Sahu
Bench: Parth Prateem Sahu
1 / 11
2024:CGHC:47651-DB
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
WPPIL No. 124 of 2020
1. Ram Krishna Bhargava (Petitioner In Person) Aged About 76
Years R/o R-3/4, Soorya Vihar Lingidih Seepat Road, Bilaspur
Tahsil And District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh Mobile No.
7646859744, District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh
... Petitioner
versus
1. The State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Chief Secretary,
Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur
District Raipur Chhattisgarh
2. The Principal Secretary Revenue And Disaster Management
Department, Chhattisgarh Govt. Mahanadi Bhawan,
Mantralaya, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur District Raipur
Chhattisgarh
3. The Principal Secretary Nagriya Prashashan Department,
Chhattisgarh Govt. Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Atal Nagar,
Nawa Raipur District Raipur Chhattisgarh
4. The Principal Secretary Water Resources Department,
Chhattisgarh Govt. Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Atal Nagar,
Nawa Raipur District Raipur Chhattisgarh
5. The Collector Cum Dy. Secretary Revenue And Disaster
Management Department, Bilaspur District Bilaspur
Chhattisgarh
6. The Sub Divisional Officer Cum Land Acquistition Officer
Bilaspur Sub Divison, Bilaspur District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh
7. The Commissioner Bilaspur Municipal Corporation, Town Hall/
Vikas Bhawan Nehru Chowk, Bilaspur District Bilaspur
Chhattisgarh
2 / 11
8. The Inspector General Of Police Bilaspur Zone Har Wrd
Complex, Bilaspur District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh
9. The Superintendent Of Police Bilaspur District Bilaspur
Chhattisgarh
10. The M. L. A. Shailesh Pandey, House No. E-2/4, Ware House
Road, Bilaspur District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh
11. Managing Director Bilaspur City Limited Vikas Bhawan, Nehru
Chowk, District Bilaspur (CG) 495001.
... Respondents
For Petitioner : Petitioner in person.
For Respondent State : Mr. Rahul Tamaskar, Govt. Advocate
For Respondent No.7 : Mr. Abhyuday Singh and Mr. Harshmander
Rastogi, Advocates.
DB: Hon'ble Mr. Sanjay K Agrawal, J
Hon'ble Mr. Parth Prateem Sahu, J
Order on Board
Per Parth Prateem Sahu, J
02.12.2024
1. Petitioner, who appears in person, has filed this writ petition in the shape of public interest litigation, seeking following reliefs:-
"10.1.That, as per FCTRR Act 2013 schedule -I and II and Ideal Rehabilitation Policy 2007 of Chhattisgarh compensation may be awarded and order may be issued to disburse immediately to the displaced and effected occupants. Annexure P/9 10.2.That as per FCTRR act 2013 the rehabilitation and resettlement may be done to the effected families and occupants as laid down in the schedule III and land allotment may be done as per standard norms as mentioned in Section 6.2 and 6.3 of IRP 2007 of C.G. and FCTRR 2013 Schedule II Column -1. ANNEXURE :
P/9 10.3 That the small Timber merchants may be resettled in some Industrial areas as per schedule II column 8 along with grant and compensation. ANNEXURE : P/9 10.4 That the small shop keepers/ cattle shed holders may be awarded grant and compensation as per 3 / 11 schedule II column V.7 of the FCTRR act 2013.
ANNEXURE : P/9 10.5. That the ISDP Quarters do not meet the specifications laid down in section 6.2 and6.3 of the IRP 2007 C.G. and para 1.1 and 1.2 of the second schedule of the FCTRR act 2013, hence order may be passed to allot standard plots to the victims in the Rehabilitation centres under section 31 and 32 of the FCTRR act 2013. ANNEXURE : P/9 10.6. That the ISDP Quarters are clusters of three storied complexes with very small accommodation, situated quite away from the city without conveyance facilities and without infrastructural amenities as mentioned in schedule III of the FCTRR act so be abandoned for the displaced families. Hence order may be passed to set up and develop separate Rehabilitation centres as per schedule III of the act. ANNEXURE : P/9 10.7. That under the provision of FCTRR act about resettlement of SC/ ST as per section 41 and sub section 4, 6 and 8 and as per column V of the second schedule, the issues may be resolved. Annexure P/9.
10.8. That order may be passed to award one time grant and monthly subsistence allowance as per schedule II of the FCTRR act to victims among them many women working as domestic servants and men as artisans like plumbers, electricians, carpenters, welders, painters press compositors, hotel mistries, cooks, Chowkidars Timber saw operators and as sweepers of the Balmiki Nagar in the City. All these persons shifted to remote places from their work place, so loosing their jobs. ANNEXURE : P/9 10.9.That Victims may be awarded miscellaneous aid to displaced persons/ families under section 8 sub sections
8. 1, 8.2, 8.4, 8.5, 8.6, 8.7, 8.8, 8.9, 8.10 and 8.12 and order may be passed to implement subsection 7.1, 7.2, 7.3, 7.4, 7.5 and 7.6 of the section 7 as mentioned in the IRP 2007 act which provides employment and other facilities. ANNEXURE : P/9 10.10. That the total loss due to damages of assets dwelling houses, structures, shops, mills, dairies and school buildings along with cost of the land occupied by victims amounts to about Rs. 355.75 crores (Para 3.15, 4 / 11 3.16, 3.17 and 3.18) Since before shifting of the Victims no Rehabilitation and Resettlement programme taken up and no such centres earmarked decided or developed so order may be passed to award compensation to the amount of Rs. 711.50 Crores to enable the victims to make their own private arrangements. ANNEXURE : P/10 10.11. That order may be passed to award other entitlements (u/s 31 of the Act 2013 FCTRR) like grant, transportation, one time settlement allowance etc as laid down in the column 5, 6, 7, 8 and 10 of the second Schedule of the act. Annexure P/10.
10.12. The Collector of the instant incumbency may be held responsible for plunging life of occupiers into human sufferings, loss of their property and breaking the socioeconomic relations. The collector ignored provisions of law in arranging the Rehabilitation scheme made in favour of occupiers as per FCTRR act and IRP 2007 CG act and also in award of compensation as per section 38(1) and failed to rehabilitation u/s 38(2).Hence the responsible collector may be summoned up u/s 87(1) and (2) of the act 2013.
10.13 That in para 9.17 and 9.18 it is stated that the river bed and land on the bank is not allotted to the requiring body (BMC) any sort of work on these places may be declared null and void. Since the eviction of occupants is exclusively sponsored and protected by the Chief secretary of Chhattisgarh and Collector of Bilaspur, they may be summoned up for criminal offence of illegal forced displacement of occupants.
10.14 That order may be passed to inquire about the intensive hectic operation initiated from which centre and person who has thrown nearly 800 families and 2000 persons life in the disaster for meeting out the malafide intensions Para 9.20 and 9.21.
10.15. That MLA Bilaspur (Shailesh Pandey) and the Vice President of Congress (Chhattisgarh State) Atal Shrivastava had taken no interest in protecting their rights. The occupier victims approached both of them but returned empty hands. It appears they are involved and share some interest in the malafide affairs. Hence forth they may be summoned up and trialed.
5 / 11
10.16. That some of the effected persons knocked the High Court for relief and justice. Because facts of the case not brought in the knowledge of the court, as per law under FCTRR act 2013 and IRP CG 2007 the court could not delivered the relief to the satisfaction of victims, immense disappointment generated in them. The court may issue order to review the decisions delivered on13.06.2020 and 17.06.2020 to decide and deliver a complete judgment. ANNEXURE : P/11 0.17 That order may be passed to shield and barricade whole area from where the occupants have been displaced so that inspection of the destroyed houses and structures attached to earth can be done and also if needed the quantum of compensation may be verified in favour of individual victim.
10.28 That order may be passed to stop any sort of work on the effected area to avoid amalgamating the holdings of the occupants and to preserve the identification of the plot area held up in possession by the occupant, for determining it's value.
10.19 That order may be passed to stop any physical work on the vacated area unless the Arpa Project approved and completed.
11.20 That order may be passed to stop displacement of families/ occupiers on left Bank to protect their shelters shops and other holdings unless the Arpa Project completed.
That the displaced families may be allowed to stay in the dilapidated IHSDP vertical complexes of slums, free of cost till the Rehabilitation and Resettlement not completed by Govt or by own self privately.
10.02 That as stated in para 9.22 to avoid any other legal complications order may be passed to cancel the tender of road work on both the banks.
10.23 That the court may be pleased to award any other relief in favour of the victims."
2. It is submission of petitioner that he is political and social worker and resident of city of Bilaspur. He has filed this public interest litigation on his own expenses to protect the interest of 6 / 11 the affected families residing at the bank of river Arpa, Bilaspur, which is known as 'Valmiki Nagar and doing their business of Babool and other wooden furniture by setting up timber mills for the last more than sixty years. Two schools namely Kranti Kumar Bharti Vidya Nagar High School and Munnoolal Shukla School, are running for the last 40 and 107 years respectively. Some dairies are also established near Shanichari Rapta since more than 70 years. Persons who were in possession of residential and commercial accommodation at the bank of river Arpa i.e. from Chantapara to Shanichari Rapta, were displaced by respondent No.7 Municipal Corporation and rehabilitated under the Integrated Housing and Slum Development Programme (for short 'IHSDP') in the accommodation constructed at Imlipara and Bahtarai, which were in dilapidated condition. The respondents are demanding Rs.30,000/- per annum from the families rehabilitated in the small houses. He submits that the procedure prescribed under the provisions of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency Land Acquisition Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (for short 'the Act of 2013') and the Ideal Rehabilitation Policy of Chhattisgarh, 2007 (for short 'IRPCG, 2007') have not been complied with.
3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No.11 opposing the submissions of the petitioner, would argue that persons in possession of land by raising construction at the bank of river Arpa from Chantapara to Shanichari Rapta, were displaced for the purpose of construction of river-side road 7 / 11 from Indira Setu to Shanichari Rapta. About 57 affected persons have earlier filed writ petitions before this Court which came to be registered as WPC Nos.1159/20, 1160/20, 1161/20, 1162/20, and the same were disposed of vide order dated 9.6.2020 observing that claim of petitioners therein demanding land in lieu of land cannot be considered to be a sound claim or a logical claim as the land which was allotted to them was only for residence; in lieu of the said residence, the respondents have granted the petitioners an alternative fully constructed houses with access to safe water with good sanitation and electricity etc., hence, the claim of petitioners demanding land in lieu of land is not sustainable. It is also contended on behalf of respondent No.11 that one more public interest litigation bearing WPPIL No.53/2020 was filed by one Priyanka Shukla, which was also dismissed vide order dated 18.6.2020. Another writ petition bearing No.1234/2020 filed by Gajanand Agrawal and others, who were operating timber mill on the land, was disposed of observing that "let petitioners approach the respondent Collector Bilaspur with a claim for grant of alternative suitable land somewhere else in lieu of the present land from where they may be dislocated and the same shall be considered in accordance with rules, regulations and the scheme, if any, applicable". Pursuant to the order passed in WPC No.1234/2020, claim of petitioners therein was considered and rejected vide order dated 22.7.2020. The order passed in WPC No.1234/2020 was put to challenge by filing Writ Appeal No.293/2020, which is pending consideration. 8 / 11 Hence, this petition seeking similar relief, which has already been considered in earlier round of writ petitions, cannot be granted.
4. Learned State Counsel made similar submissions based on earlier orders passed in writ petitions and writ appeals.
5. We have heard learned counsel for the respective parties and perused the documents available in record of writ petition.
6. Persons aggrieved with the action taken by respondent Corporation of their displacement and rehabilitation under the IHSDP scheme, have earlier filed writ petitions bearing Nos.1159/20, 1160/20, 1161/20, 1162/20. Said writ petitions with respect to claim of demand of land in lieu of the land was held to be not sustainable by observing thus:-
"31. The dam of the petitioners demanding land in lieu of land cannot be considered to be a sound claim or a logical claim as the land which was allotted to them was only for residence. In lieu of said residence, the respondents have granted the petitioners an alternative fully constructed houses with access to safe water with good sanitation and electricity etc. In view of the same. the said claim of the petitioners demanding land in lieu of land is not sustainable.
38. In view of the fact that the respondents have taken care of the petitioners by providing decent environment and reasonable accommodation at new houses and the said allotted accommodation would be leased out in the name of petitioners for a period of 30 years, this court is of the opinion that no strong case has been made out by the petitioners for interference with the impugned notices or the action subsequently taken. However, as has been held in the preceding paragraphs, the two petitioners in WPC No. 1162 ot 2020, who have been refused accommodation, would how be considered by the respondent authorities for grant 9 / 11 of accommodation forthwith without any further delay."
7. Earlier, WPPIL No.53/2020 involving similar issue came to be dismissed by the Division Bench of this Court observing thus:-
"10. It is also brought to the notice of this Court that in the course of further proceedings, the Police offered necessary help and the Officers of the Local Authority went to the spot with Police Force for taking the buildings in possession. Many of the occupants vacated the premises and went back to the places where they were dwelling earlier. Some of the occupants resisted and about 13 persons forcefully prevented the Public Officers from doing their duty and they were pelting stones at the Department / police vehicles causing serious damage. This led to registration of FIR (Annexure R-1/5) for various offences under the relevant provisions of law. It is also brought to the notice of this Court that all the unauthorized occupants as above have already been evicted and most of them have returned to their places as mentioned already. Since there remained about 35 families, they were taken care of and shifted to the Community hall as a temporary measure. The learned counsel submits that the direction given by this Court on 10.06.2020 has been honoured and adds that, if any evicted occupants are wandering on the road, they will be taken care of and accommodated in the Community hall / such other places identified in this regard. The learned counsel ! points out that, despite the preparedness of the Local Authority in this regard, nobody has come forward so far. The 35 families accommodated in the. Community hall are provided with all the basic requirements for their health and hygiene, as reflected from the photographs (Annexure R-1/7) produced along with return.
11. In support of the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the Local Authority as discussed above, reliance is sought to be placed on the verdict passed by the Apex Court in Dr. B. Singh v. Union of India and Others reported in (2004) 3 SCC 363 to the effect that a Public Interest Litigant should take efforts to collect the data, instead of 10 / 11 trying to make a rowing enquiry, merely on the basis of some newspaper reports. Similarly, reliance is also sought to be placed on the verdict passed by the Apex Court in State of Madhya Pradesh v. Narmada Bachaod in (2011) 7 SCC 639 to highlight that the discretionary jurisdiction of this Court may not be extended to the persons whose cause is projected in the writ petition, who do not have any regard to the rule of law and if at all they are having any grievance, it is for them to pursue the same before the competent authority, in a legal manner."
8. WPC No.1234/2020 filed by persons engaged in the business of timer at the bank of river Arpa was also disposed of by learned Single Judge vide order dated 12.6.2020 permitting petitioners therein to submit an application / representation before the Collector, Bilaspur for grant of alternate suitable land at other place. Applicant / representation submitted pursuant thereto was rejected by the Nazul Officer vide order dated 22.7.2020 observing that lease of land allotted to petitioners therein expired about 35-40 years ago. The order passed in WPC No.1234/2020 was challenged in WA No.293/2020 and as informed by learned counsel for respondents, said writ appeal is still pending consideration.
9. In the above facts of the case, where some of the aggrieved persons/ affected persons have already approached this Court and the orders have been passed in writ petitions, they have not further challenged the order by way of writ appeals, except the persons who were engaged in the business of timber, we do not find any good ground to admit this public interest litigation and accordingly it is dismissed in limine. 11 / 11
10. However, the aggrieved /affected persons will be at liberty o take recourse to the law for redressal of their grievance, if any, against the action taken by the respondent Corporation.
Sd/- Sd/-
(Sanjay K Agrawal) (Parth Prateem Sahu)
Judge Judge
SYED
ROSHAN
ZAMIR ALI
Digitally signed
by SYED
ROSHAN
ZAMIR ALI
roshan/-