Chattisgarh High Court
Sanjay Modi vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 12 May, 2022
Author: Rajendra Chandra Singh Samant
Bench: Rajendra Chandra Singh Samant
Page No.1 of 29
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
Order Reserved on : 29.04.2022
Order Passed on : 12/05/2022
Writ Petition (Civil) No. 2899 of 2020
Vedant Modi S/o Raja Modi, Aged About 20 Years, R/o Old Sadar
Bazar, Raigarh, District Raigarh, Chhattisgarh
---- Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Department Of Industry
And Commerce, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Nava Raipur,
Chhattisgarh
2. Collector Raigarh District Raigarh, Chhattisgarh
3. Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue) SDO Cum Land Acquisition Officer,
Tahsil-Pussore, District-Raigarh, Chhattisgarh
4. Tahsildar Pussore, District-Raigarh, Chhattisgarh
5. National Thermal Power Corporation Ltd. Through Its Managing
Director, Scope Bhawan, 7 Institutional Road, Lodhi Road, New
Delhi
6. General Manager LARA, Super Thermal Power Station, Tahsil
Pussore District-Raigarh, Chhattisgarh
---- Respondents
Writ Petition (Civil) No. 932 of 2021
1. Vijaya Devi Goenka W/o Om Prakash Goenka Aged About 66 Years R/o Old Sadar Bazar, Raigarh, District- Raigarh, Chhattisgarh
2. Om Praksash Goenka S/o Late Laxmi Narayan Goenka Aged About 68 Years R/o Old Sadar Bazar, Raigarh, District- Raigarh, Chhattisgarh
3. Nidhi Goenka W/o Vikas Goenka Aged About 40 Years R/o Old Sadar Bazar, Raigarh, District- Raigarh, Chhattisgarh
4. Pooja Goenka D/o Om Prakash Goenka Aged About 40 Years R/o Old Sadar Bazar, Raigarh, District- Raigarh, Chhattisgarh
5. Vikas Goenka S/o Om Prakash Goenka Aged About 44 Years R/o Old Sadar Bazar, Raigarh, District- Raigarh, Chhattisgarh
---- Petitioners Versus
1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Department Of Industry And Commerce, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Nava Raipur, Chhattisgarh Page No.2 of 29
2. Collector Raigarh, District- Raigarh, Chhattisgarh
3. Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue) Cum Land Acquisition Officer Tehsil- Pussore, District- Raigarh, Chhattisgarh
4. Tahsildar Pussore, District- Raigarh, Chhattisgarh
5. National Thermal Power Corporation Ltd. Through Its Managing Director, Scope Bhawan, 7 Institutional Road, Lodhi Road, New Delhi
6. General Manager LARA, Super Thermal Power Station, Tehsil Pussore, District- Raigarh, Chhattisgarh
---- Respondents Writ Petition (Civil) No. 952 of 2021
1. Ashok Kumar Modi S/o Late Kisan Lal Modi, Aged About 66 Years, R/o Old Sadar Bazar, District Raigarh, Chhattisgarh
2. Raja Modi S/o Kisan Lal Modi, Aged About 46 Years, R/o Old Sadar Bazar, District Raigarh, Chhattisgarh
3. Radhika Modi D/o Raja Modi Aged About 16 Years Through Natural Guardian Shikha Modi W/o Raja Modi, R/o Old Sadar Bazar, District Raigarh, Chhattisgarh
---- Petitioners Versus
1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Department Of Industry And Commerce, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Nava Raipur, Chhattisgarh
2. Collector Raigarh District Raigarh, Chhattisgarh
3. Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue) Cum Land Acquisition Officer Tehsil Pussore, District Raigarh, Chhattisgarh
4. Tahsildar Pussore, District Raigarh, Chhattisgarh
5. National Thermal Power Corporation Ltd. Through Its Managing Director, Scope Bhawan, 7 Institutional Road, Lodhi Road, New Delhi
6. General Manager LARA, Super Thermal Power Station, Tehsil Pussore, District Raigarh, Chhattisgarh
---- Respondents Writ Petition (Civil) No. 976 of 2021
1. Meena Devi Agrawal W/o Dilip Agrawal, Aged About 66 Years R/o Old Sadar Bazar Raigarh, District Raigarh Chhattisgarh
2. Anubha Agrawal D/o Dilip Agrawal Aged About 30 Years R/o Old Sadar Bazar Raigarh District Raigarh Chhattisgarh
3. Rishabh Agrawal S/o Dilip Agarwal Aged About 27 Years R/o Old Sadar Bazar, Raigarh, District Raigarh Chhattisgarh
4. Manju Agrawal D/o Late Kishan Lal Modi Aged About 54 Years R/o Old Sadar Bazar, Raigarh, District Raigarh Chhattisgarh Page No.3 of 29
---- Petitioners Versus
1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary Department Of Industry And Commerce, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Nava Raipur, Chhattisgarh
2. Collector Raigarh District Raigarh Chhattisgarh
3. Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue) Cum Land Acquisition Officer Tehsil Pussore, District Raigarh Chhattisgarh
4. Tahsildar Pussore, District Raigarh Chhattisgarh
5. National Thermal Power Corporation Ltd. Through Its Managing Director, Scope Bhawan, 7 Institutional Road, Lodhi Road,new Delhi
6. General Manager LARA, Super Thermal Power Station, Tehsil Pussore, District- Raigarh, Chhattisgarh
---- Respondents Writ Petition (Civil) No. 980 of 2021
1. Hardik Modi S/o Sanjay Modi Aged About 30 Years R/o Old Sadar Bazar, Raigarh, District Raigarh Chhattisgarh
2. Chaitanya Modi S/o Sanjay Modi Aged About 27 Years R/o Old Sadar Bazar, Raigarh, District Raigarh Chhattisgarh
3. Vedika Modi D/o Sanjay Modi Aged About 20 Years R/o Old Sadar Bazar, Raigarh, District Raigarh Chhattisgarh
4. Preeti Modi W/o Sanjay Modi Aged About 51 Years R/o Old Sadar Bazar, Raigarh, District Raigarh Chhattisgarh
5. Sangita Jhunjhunwala D/o Late Kishan Lal Modi Aged About 52 Years R/o Old Sadar Bazar, Raigarh, District Raigarh Chhattisgarh
---- Petitioners Versus
1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Department Of Industry And Commerce, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Nava Raipur, (Chhattisgarh)
2. Collector Raigarh, District Raigarh Chhattisgarh
3. Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue) Cum Land Acquisition Officer, Tehsil Pussore, District Raigarh Chhattisgarh
4. Tahsildar, Pussore, District Raigarh Chhattisgarh
5. National Thermal Power Corporation Ltd Through Its Managing Director, Scope Bhawan, 7 Institutional Road, Lodhi Road, New Delhi
6. General Manager, LARA, Super Thermal Power Station, Tehsil Pussore, District Raigarh Chhattisgarh
---- Respondents Page No.4 of 29 Writ Petition (Civil) No. 981 of 2021
1. Sanjay Modi S/o Late Kishan Lal Modi Aged About 57 Years R/o Old Sadar Bazar, Raigarh, District Raigarh Chhattisgarh
2. Raj Kumari Agrawal D/o Late Kishan Lal Modi, Aged About 71 Years R/o Old Sadar Bazar Raigarh, District Raigarh Chhattisgarh
---- Petitioners Versus
1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Department Of Industry And Commerce, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Nava Raipur, Chhattisgarh
2. Collector Raigarh District Raigarh Chhattisgarh
3. Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue) Cum Land Acquisition Officer Tehsil Pussore, District Raigarh Chhattisgarh
4. Tahsildar Pussore, District Raigarh Chhattisgarh
5. National Thermal Power Corporation Ltd Through Its Managing Director, Scope Bhawan 7, Institutional Road, Lodhi Road, New Delhi
6. General Manager LARA, Super Thermal Power Station, Tehsil Pussore, District Raigarh Chhattisgarh
---- Respondents Writ Petition (Civil) No. 982 of 2021
1. Gaurav Modi S/o Ashok Kumar Modi, Aged About 36 Years R/o Old Sadar Bazar, Raigarh District Raigarh Chhattisgarh
2. Meena Agrawal D/o Kishan Lal Agrawal, Aged About 56 Years R/o Old Sadar Bazar, Raigarh District Raigarh Chhattisgarh
---- Petitioners Versus
1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Department Of Industry And Commerce, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Nava Raipur Chhattisgarh
2. Collector Raigarh District Raigarh Chhattisgarh
3. Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue) Cum Land Acquisition Officer Tehsil Pussore, District Raigarh Chhattisgarh
4. Tehsildar Pussore, District Raigarh Chhattisgarh
5. National Thermal Power Corporation Ltd. Through Its Managing Director, Scope Bhawan, 7, Institutional Road, Lodhi Road, New Delhi
6. General Manager LARA, Super Thermal Power Station, Tehsil Pussore, District Raigarh Chhattisgarh
---- Respondents Page No.5 of 29 Writ Petition (Civil) No. 1098 of 2021
1. Asha Bansal W/o Sudhir Bansal, Aged About 59 Years R/o Old Sadar Bazar, District- Raigarh, Chhattisgarh
2. Sudhir Bansal S/o Gulab Chand Bansal, Aged About 60 Years R/o Old Sadar Bazar, District- Raigarh, Chhattisgarh
3. Abhinav Bansal S/o Sudhir Bansal Aged About 33 Years R/o Old Sadar Bazar, District- Raigarh, Chhattisgarh
4. Megha Bansal D/o Sudhir Bansal Aged About 37 Years R/o Old Sadar Bazar, District- Raigarh, Chhattisgarh
5. Vaibhav Bansal S/o Sudhir Bansal Aged About 29 Years R/o Old Sadar Bazar, District- Raigarh, Chhattisgarh
---- Petitioners Versus
1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Department Of Industry And Commerce, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Nava Raipur, C.G
2. Collector Raigarh, District- Raigarh, Chhattisgarh
3. Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue) Cum Land Acqusition Officer Tehsil- Pussore, District- Raigarh, Chhattisgarh
4. Tahsildar Pussore, District- Raigarh, Chhattisgarh
5. National Thermal Power Corporation Ltd. Through Its Managing Director, Scope Bhawan, 7 Institutional Road, Lodhi Road, New Delhi
6. General Manager LARA, Super Thermal Power Station, Tehsil Pussore, District- Raigarh, Chhattisgarh
---- Respondents Writ Petition (Civil) No. 1335 of 2021
1. Meera Devi Goenka W/o Anjani Goenka, Aged About 66 Years R/o Old Sadar Bazar, Raigarh District - Raigarh Chhattisgarh
2. Arvind Goenka S/o Anjani Goenka, Aged About 40 Years R/o Old Sadar Bazar, Raigarh District - Raigarh Chhattisgarh
3. Abhishek Goenka S/o Anjani Goenka, Aged About 38 Years R/o Old Sadar Bazar, Raigarh District - Raigarh Chhattisgarh
4. Anjani Goenka S/o Late Jawala Prasad Goenka, Aged About 67 Years R/o Old Sadar Bazar, Raigarh District - Raigarh Chhattisgarh
5. Sweta Goenka D/o Anjani Goenka, Aged About 41 Years R/o Old Sadar Bazar, Raigarh District - Raigarh Chhattisgarh
---- Petitioners Versus
1. State Of Chhattisgarh, Through Secretary, Department Of Industry And Commerce, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Nava Raipur, Chhattisgarh Page No.6 of 29
2. Collector Raigarh, District Raigarh Chhattisgarh
3. Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue) Cum Land Acquisition Officer, Tehsil - Pussore, District Raigarh Chhattisgarh
4. Tahsildar, Pussore, District Raigarh Chhattisgarh
5. National Thermal Power Corporation Ltd Through Its Managing Director, Scope Bhawan, 7 Institutional Road, Lodhi Road, New Delhi
6. General Manager, LARA, Super Thermal Power Station, Tehsil Pussore, District Raigarh Chhattisgarh
---- Respondents Writ Petition (Civil) No. 1416 of 2021
1. Om Prakash Agrawal S/o Late Kisan Lal Agrawal, Aged About 63 Years R/o Old Sadar Bazar, Raigarh, District - Raigarh (Chhattisgarh)
2. Kiran Agrawal W/o Om Prakash Agrawal, Aged About 60 Years R/o Old Sadar Bazar, Raigarh, District - Raigarh (Chhattisgarh)
3. Suman Agrawal D/o Om Prakash Agrawal, Aged About 40 Years R/o Old Sadar Bazar, Raigarh, District - Raigarh (Chhattisgarh)
4. Nipu Alias Avinash Agrawal S/o Om Prakash Agrawal, Aged About 35 Years R/o Old Sadar Bazar, Raigarh, District- Raigarh (Chhattisgarh)
---- Petitioners Versus
1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Department Of Industry And Commerce, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Nava Raipur, (Chhattisgarh)
2. Collector Raigarh, District Raigarh (Chhattisgarh)
3. Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue) Cum Land Acquisition Officer Tehsil
- Pussore, District Raigarh (Chhattisgarh)
4. Tahsildar Pussore, District Raigarh (Chhattisgarh)
5. National Thermal Power Corporation Ltd. Through Its Managing Director, Scope Bhawan, 7 Institutional Road, Lodhi Road, New Delhi
6. General Manager LARA, Super Thermal Power Station, Tehsil Pussore District Raigarh (Chhattisgarh)
---- Respondents Writ Petition (Civil) No. 2893 of 2020 Shyama Tibdewal W/o Pradeep Tibdewal, Aged About 59 Years, Occupation - Housewife, R/o Old Sadar Bazar, Raigarh, District- Raigarh, Chhattisgarh
---- Petitioner Versus Page No.7 of 29
1. State Of Chhattisgarh, Through Secretary, Department Of Industry And Commerce, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Nava Raipur, Chhattisgarh
2. Collector, Raigarh, District- Raigarh, Chhattisgarh
3. Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue) cum Land Acquisition Officer, Tehsil
- Pussore, District- Raigarh, Chhattisgarh
4. Tahsildar, Pussore, District- Raigarh, Chhattisgarh
5. National Thermal Power Corporation Ltd., Through Its Managing Director, Scope Bhawan, 7 Institutional Road, Lodhi Road, New Delhi
6. General Manager, LARA, Super Thermal Power Station, Tehsil- Pussore, District- Raigarh, Chhattisgarh
---- Respondents Writ Petition (Civil) No. 2913 of 2020 Sudha Agrawal W/o Late Harish Chandra, Aged About 50 Years Occupations-Housewife, R/o Old Sadar Bazar, Raigarh, District Raigarh, Chhattisgarh
---- Petitioner Versus
1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Department Of Industry And Commerce, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Nava Raipur, (Cg)
2. Collector Raigarh, District Raigarh, Chhattisgarh
3. Sub Divional Officer Revenue Cum Land Acquisition Officer, Tahsil- Pussore, District Raigarh, Chhattisgarh
4. Tahsildar Pussore, District Raigarh, Chhattisgarh
5. National Thermal Power Corporation Ltd Through Its Managing Director, Scope Bhawan, 7 Institutional Road, Lodhi Road New Delhi
6. General Manager LARA Super Thermal Power Station, Tahsil Pussore District Raigarh, Chhattisgarh
---- Respondents For Petitioners : Mr. Rajeev Shrivastava, Sr.Advocate with Mr. Siddharth Shukla, Advocate.
For State/Respondents No.1 to 4 : Mr. Chandresh Shrivastava, Addl. A.G. with Mr. Rahul Jha, Govt. Advocate & Ms. Sameeksha Gupta, Panel Lawyer.
For Respondents No.5 & 6 : Mr. B.D. Guru, Advocate.
Hon'ble Shri Justice Rajendra Chandra Singh Samant C A V ORDER Page No.8 of 29
1. All these petitions have been brought praying for issuance of appropriate Writ, directing the respondents to determine and pay the compensation with all the consenquential benefits including interests in the matter of acquisition of lands of the petitioners, in accordance with The Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act, 2013"). Relief is also prayed for direction to the respondent authorities to initiate departmental action against the erring officials, who have committed illegality to frustrate the legislative intent of the Act, 2013 and also for payment of compensation for violation of human rights of the petitioner.
2. Petitioners in all the cases are owners of their respective land situated in Tehsil Pussore, District- Raigarh, C.G. Notification dated 22.09.2012 was issued by respondent No.2 under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act, 1894") showing intention of the Government to acquire the lands for industrial purpose. Another notification dated 30.04.2013 was issued making a decLARAtion that the acquisition of land is required for industrial purpose. Notices were issued to the petitioners for giving the appearance and submit objections, if any, with respect to the land acquisitions. Lands notified were acquired and award dated 11.11.2013 was passed.
3. It is submitted by the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners that the award dated 11.11.2013 was never filed in the Collector Office and notice of this award as required under Section 12(2) of the Act, 1894 was never given to the petitioners. Compensation was also not paid to the petitioners and proceeding in the Acquisition Case Page No.9 of 29 No.69/A-82/2011-12 was continued. During the pendency of this case, the Act, 2013 was enacted and came into force on 01.01.2014. It is submitted that the award dated 11.11.2013 was not finalised as per Section 12 of the Act, 1894 and no compensation was paid to the petitioners, therefore, in such circumstances, the Act, 2013 has become applicable in the present Acquisition Case.
4. It is further submitted that the final award was passed by respondent No.3 on 06.05.2014 and despite the fact that the Act, 2013 has come into force, the compensation was determined in accordance with the Act, 1894. This act of the respondent authorities is malicious in law, unfair and also violating the right of the petitioners as guaranteed under the Constitution of India. Therefore,the award dated 06.05.2014, which has been termed as 'Amended Award' is illegal. The petitioner in all the cases have received the compensation as per the award dated 06.05.2014 under protest, which does not mean that the petitioners have relinquished their claims as per law. The facts demonstrate, that the award was not finalised before 06.05.2014, therefore, under the provisions of Section 24(2) of the Act, 2013, the respondent authorities had the liability to initiate fresh proceeding under the Act, 2013. As it is mentioned in the award dated 06.05.2014, that this award has been pased after following the procedure under Section 13(A) of the Act, 1894 and therefore, it is an amended award. It is submitted that the award dated 11.11.2013 was never notified and finalised, therefore, the award dated 06.05.2014 has to be treated as the final award. It is further stated that Section 13(A) of the Act, 1894 provides only for correction of clerical errors or arithmetical mistakes present in the earlier award passed but the Page No.10 of 29 impugned award has been passed beyond the scope present under Section 13(A) of the Act, 1894, by taking into consideration some objections regarding increase in survey numbers, some partition subsequent to notification and also some sale transactions by the Members of Schedule Tribe, which cannot be taken into consideration under Section 13(A) of the Act, 1894.
5. Reliance is placed on the judgment of Supreme Court in the case of Indore Development Authority Vs. Manoharlal and Others reported in (2020) 8 SCC 129, in which it has been held that the Section 24(2) of the Act, 2013 makes an exception of such cases where compensation is not paid to the beneficiaries subsequent to enactment of the Act, 2013, they shall be entitled for compensation in accordance with the Act, 2013.
6. It is submitted that in the case of Lalaram and Others Vs. Jaipur Development Authority and Another reported in (2016) 11 SCC 31, It has been held that right to property has been elevated to the status of human right.
7. Reliance is also placed on the judgment of Supreme Court in the case of Anand Singh and Another Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Others reported in (2010) 11 SCC 242, Sant Lal Gupta and Others Vs. Modern Cooperative Group Housing Society Limited and Others reported in (2010) 13 SCC 336, Kamlesh Verma Vs. Mayawati and Others reported in (2013) 8 SCC 320. It is submitted by the learned senior counsel for the petitioners that the petitioners in all the cases have entitlement to compensation in accordance with the Act, 2013, therefore, appropriate Writs be issued. Page No.11 of 29
8. Learned Additional Advocate General- Shri Chandresh Shrivastava representing respondents No.1 to 4 opposes the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner. It is submitted that the award dated 11.11.2013 was passed in strict compliance of the provisions under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The petitioners were issued notice to present themselves and raise objections. Subsequent to which, no objection was raised and the award was passed. It is submitted that subsequent to passing of award, it was discovered that Khasra No.78/4-d as well as Khasra No.77/7-d measuring 0.849 hectare were incorrectly included in the award as this land was beyond the project area. It was also discovered that the chunks of land were sold out, after the issuance of notification under Section 6. The purchaser of such small chunks had intention to take undue benefit of the acquisition proceeding. The names of such beneficiaries were not present in the notification published under Section 6 of the Act, 1894. An inquiry was conducted in which the fraud/scam was exposed, therefore, there was requirement for rectification in the award passed on 11.11.2013, as the amended award dated 06.05.2014 has been passed. The amount of compensation determined in favour of the petitioners in award dated 11.11.2013 and in the award dated 06.05.2014 is same. The Land Acquisition Officer has the authority to pass amended award under Section 13 (A) of the Act, 1894. It is further submitted that even after passing of the amended award on 06.05.2014, the petitioners in all these cases did not raise any objection for about 06 years and then representation was filed on 16.06.2020 seeking enhancement of compensation in accordance with the Act, 2013. Section 24(1)(b) of Page No.12 of 29 the Act, 2013, provides that where an award under Section 11 of the Act, 1894 has been made, then such proceedings shall continue under the provisions of the Act, 1894, as if the said Act has not been repealed. Therefore, the power for amending the award as provided under Section 13(A) of the Act, 1894, was available under the Act, 1894, which has been exercised. Hence, there is no illegality in the award dated 06.05.2014. It is further submitted that the present petitions have also been filed after the delay of about 06 years. Hence, such petitions cannot be entertained after such inordinate delay.
9. Learned State counsel has placed reliance on the judgment of Supreme Court in case of Banda Development Authority Vs. Motilal Agrawal, reported in (2011) 5 SCC 394, Chennai Metropolitan Water Supply Vs. T.T. Murli, reported in, (2014) 4 SCC 109, Swarika Properties & Anr. Vs. State of Rajasthan , reported in (2008) 4 SCC 695, on the ground that the petition filed after huge delay can not be entertained. Reliance is also placed on the judgment of Supreme Court in case of Punjab State Electricity Board Vs. Malkiat Singh, reported in (2005) 9 SCC 22 and in case of Shiv Kumar Vs. Union of India, reported in (2019) 10 SCC 229 on the same point of delay and latches. Therefore, the petitioners in all the cases are not entitled for any relief.
10. Learned counsel Mr. B.D. Guru for respondents No.5 and 6 has adopted the argument of the learned Deputy Advocate General. It is further submitted, that the fraud and illegal transaction of land discovered after notification under Section 6 of the Act, 1894 needed inquiry and, therefore, there was a need for amendment of award Page No.13 of 29 dated 11.11.2013 also which has been amended and the amended award dated 06.05.2014 has been passed in exercise of Section 13 (A) of the Act, 1894. It is submitted that in the case of NTPC Limited LARA Super Thermal Power Project and Another Vs. Shreyansh Jaiswal and Others in Writ Appeal No.47 of 2016 decided by Division Bench of this Court on 04.02.2016, the Division Bench observed, that there is involvement of public money as the payment has to be made from taxpayers' money. Hence, if any doubt arises regarding some ineligible persons getting benefitted in the process, in that case, the authorities are at liberty to take steps to rectify the errors and make payment accordingly, therefore, nothing precludes the authorities concerned to hold an inquiry into the matter. It is submitted, that after discovery of the certain facts regarding ineligible persons being benefitted by the acquisition procedure, an inquiry was needed and that was correctly made in this case which is a reason for the passing of the amended award. It is further submitted that the petitioners have the grievance with respect to the amount of compensation, regarding which they have the remedy under the Act, 1894 and also Section 64 of the Act, 2013 provided for the remedy to make reference to the competent authority.
11. It is further submitted that when the notification was issued under Section 4 of the Act, 1894, the number of Khasra Number was 637 for 160.61 hectare of the land, which was increased to 1473 Khasra numbers for 128.69 hectares of land and then, it was further increased to 1951 Khasra numbers for 128.120 hectares of the same land, which has been inquired. It was subsequent to the notification Page No.14 of 29 under Section 4 of the Act, 1894, the pieces of the land of the same chunk were transferred with ulterior motive to take benefit of the scheme of opportunity for seeking employment. It is also submitted that the land was officially acquired for Chhattisgarh State Industrial Development Corporation (hereinafter referred to as 'CSIDC'). This land has been leased to respondent No.5 by CSIDC. CSIDC is not a party in this case. In the judgment of Indore Development Authority (Supra), the Section 24(2) of the Act, 2013 has been very clearly interpreted according to which, none of the petitioners is entitled for any relief. Hence, all the petitions be dismissed.
12. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners make submissions in rebuttal. He submits that the petitioners are not challenging the acquisition procedure. The fraud etc. as has been pleaded and argued by the respondent side has no connection with the petitioners and they are not the persons involved. It is submitted that the respondents No.5 and 6 have filed the copy of agreement and the note of promise of the petitioner which is dated 16.06.2020, which further clarifies that the compensation amount was disbursed in the year 2020, which is the reason why these petitions have been filed in the year 2020 and 2021. Therefore, there is no delay in filing these petitions. It is submitted that CSIDC is not an answering party as the petitioners are not claiming any relief against CSIDC. The land was acquired by the Government and the compensation has been determined by the Land Acquisition Officer. The Government, the Land Acquisition Officer and the other representative authorities of the State who are necessary parties have been arrayed as respondents in this case. Therefore, the petitions filed do not suffer Page No.15 of 29 from any infirmity and the petitioners are entitled for relief.
13. Heard leanred counsel for both the parties and perused the documents present on record.
14. The specific ground raised by the respondents side that this petition can not be entertained on the ground of delay and latches. In case of Banda Development Authority (Supra), the Supreme Court has taken into consideration, the unexplained delay in filing of writ petition. The unexplained delay, inordinate delay or gross delay whatever the case may be requires an explanation. The explanation given by the petitioners side is this that the petitioners were paid compensation in the year 2020 and therefore, there was lapse of more than five years on the part of the respondents in making payment of compensation, which is one of the reason for delay. It is the submission from petitioner side that only after receiving the compensation, the petitioners came to know that the compensation paid to them was much less than what they were entitled to receive. It was subsequent to that all the petitioners made representation in the year 2020 and when the same was not considered by the respondents side, this petition was filed. This appears to be sufficient explanation regarding the delay that was caused in filing this writ petitions, therefore, I am of this view that this petition can not be dismissed on the ground of delay and latches.
15. It is not disputed that the petitioners have received the amount of compensation after the Act, 2013 came into force on 01.01.2014. It is specific pleading and submission of the petitioners that they were never served with notice under Section 12(2) of the Act, 1894 Page No.16 of 29 regarding which there is no submissions in denial in the reply filed by the respondent authorities and further, there is no proof placed on record to show that the petitioners had the notice of the award dated 11.11.2013 as provided in the Section 12(2) of the Act, 1894.
16. The provisions under Section 24(1)(b) and 24(2) of the Act, 2013 are relevant for discussion in this order which are reproduced as under:-
"24. Land acquisition process under Act No. 1 of 1894 shall be deemed to have lapsed in certain cases:- (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, in any case of land acquisition proceedings initiated under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894,--
(a). where no award under section 11 of the said Land Acquisition Act has been made, then, all provisions of this Act relating to the determination of compensation shall apply; or
(b). where an award under said section 11 has been made, then such proceedings shall continue under the provisions of the said Land Acquisition Act, as if the said Act has not been repealed.
(2) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-
section (1), in case of land acquisition proceedings initiated under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (1 of 1894), where an award under the said section 11 has been made five years or more prior to the commencement of this Act but the physical possession of the land has not been taken or the compensation has not been paid the said proceedings shall be deemed to have lapsed and the appropriate Government, if it so chooses, shall initiate the proceedings of such land acquisition afresh in accordance with the provisions of this Act:
Provided that where an award has been made and compensation in respect of a majority of land Page No.17 of 29 holdings has not been deposited in the account of the beneficiaries, then, all beneficiaries specified in the notification for acquisition under section 4 of the said Land Acquisition Act, shall be entitled to compensation in accordance with the provisions of this Act."
17. Section 16 of the Act, 1894, empowers the Collector to take possession of the land after the award is made under Section 11 of the Act, 1894, there is no time specified for making payment of the compensation as determined in the award. However, Section 17(3A) of the Act, 1894 provide that 80% of the compensation shall be paid to the person affected before taking possession of the land. Section 38 of the Act, 2013, provides that Collector shall take possession of the land after ensuring that full payment of the compensation is made and other benefits are extended within a time limit of 03 months or 06 months as the case may be.
18. Affidavit has been filed by the petitioner in W.P.(C.) No.2893/2020 on 10.06.2020 and in W.P.(C.) No.2899/2020 on 11.06.2020. There is no such document filed in W.P.(C.) No.1098/2021 either by the petitioner or the respondent, but it is the pleading of the petitioner that petitioners have received compensation on 16.06.2020 under protest which is not denied by the respondent side. There is no document filed either by petitioner or respondent in W.P.(C.) No.1416/2021, however, it is pleaded in the petition by the petitioners that they have received compensation on 16.06.2020 under protest which is not denied by the respondents. In W.P.(C.) No.1335/2021 also, there is no document filed either by the petitioners or respondents regarding the date of receipt of payment, however, the petitioners have pleaded in the petition about receiving the Page No.18 of 29 compensation on 16.06.2020 under protest, which is not challenged. In W.P.(C.) No.932/2021, there is pleading in the plaint about receiving compensation on 16.06.2020 which is not denied by the respondent side. It is similarly pleaded in W.P.(C.) No.2913/2020, which is not denied by the respondents. Same is the pleading in W.P. (C.) No.981/2021 by the petitioners, in W.P.(C.) No.982/2021, in W.P. (C.) No.952/2021, in W.P.(C.) No.980/2021, W.P.(C.) No.976/2021, regarding which there is no challenge in the reply of the respondent side.
19. As per the pleadings in the petitions and the submissions, the land of the petitioners that were acquired were taken in possession by the respondents without making any payment of compensation, whereas Section 17 (3) (A) of the Act, 1894 specifically provides for payment of 80% compensation in advance, before taking possession of the land. Hence, this act of the respondents appears to be against the provision under Section 17 (3) (a) of the Act, 1894. Section 38 of the Act, 2013 provides for payment of full compensation, before taking possession of the land acquired.
20. The core question raised by the petitioners' side is that the award dated 11.11.2013 was not final award in accordance with the Section 12 of the Act, 1894 as the same was never notified neither notice was served upon the petitioner regarding this award. Therefore, it is the award dated 06.05.2014, which has to be deemed as final award, in such case, the case of the petitioners falls under Section 24 (1) (a) of the Act, 2013.
21. Section 12 of the Act, 1894 is as follows :- Page No.19 of 29
"12. Award of Collector when to be final. - (1) Such award shall be filed in Collector's office and shall, except as hereinafter provided, be final and conclusive evidence, as between the Collector and the persons interested, whether they have respectively appeared before the Collector or not, of the true area and value of the land, and apportionment of the compensation among the persons interested.
(2) The Collector shall give immediate notice of his award to such of the persons interested as are not present personally or by their representatives when the award is made."
22. In this case, the award was passed on 11.11.2013 prior to the date of enactment of Act, 2013 i.e. 01.01.2014. This case will therefore, fall under Section 24 (1) (b) of the Act, 2013, according to which, where an award under said Section 11 has been made, then such proceeding shall continue under the provisions of the said Land Acquisition Act, 1894, as if the said Act has not been repealed.
23. According to this provision, the award was passed prior to the enactment of Act, 2013 and therefore, the other proceeding such as the correction of clerical error etc. in the award under Section 13 (A) of the Act, 1894 shall continue as the Act, 1984 was not repealed.
24. The another ground urged by the petitioners' side is this that Section 24 (2) and the proviso to Section 24 (2) are applicable to the case of the petitioners as compensation in respect of a majority of land holdings was not deposited in the accounts of the beneficiaries, then all beneficiaries specified in the notification for acquisition under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, shall be entitled to Page No.20 of 29 compensation in accordance with the provisions of the of the Act, 2013.
25. In case of Indore Development Authority (supra), the Supreme Court has interpreted Section 24 in detail. Relevant paragraph are 123, 191, 197, 198, 199, 359, 366.4, 366.5, which are as under :-
"123. Section 24 (2) of the Act of 2013 deals with a situation only where the award has been made 5 years or more before the commencement of the Act, but physical possession of the land has not been taken, nor compensation has been paid. It does not visualize a situation where possession has been taken under the urgency provision of Section 17 (1), but the award has not been made. In such cases, under Section 24 (1) (a) of the Act of 2013, there is no lapse of entire proceedings: but compensation is to be determined in accordance with the provisions of the Act of 2013. In case of urgency, possession is usually taken before the award is passed. Thus, where no award is passed, where urgency provision under Section 17 (1) of the Act of 1894 had been invoked, there is no lapse, only higher compensation would follow under Section 24 (1) (a) even if payment has not been made or tendered under Section 17 (3A) of the Act of 1894.
191. Section 24 (1) (a) operates where no award is made in a pending acquisition proceeding; in such event all provisions of the new Act relating to determination of compensation would apply. Section 24 (1) (b) logically continues with the second situation, i.e. where the award has been passed, and states that in such event, proceedings would continue under the 1894 Act. Section 24 (2) - by way of an exception, Page No.21 of 29 states that where an award is made but requisite steps have not been taken for five years or more to take possession nor compensation has been paid then there is lapse of acquisition. If one of the steps has been taken, then the proviso can operate. Time is the essence. It is on the basis of time-lag that the lapse is provided and in default of payment for five years as provided on failure to deposit higher compensation is to be paid. It is based on that time- lag higher compensation has to follow. It is not the mere use of colon under Section 24(2) but the placement of the proviso next to Section 24 (2) and not below Section 24(1)(b). Thus, it is not permissible to alter a placement of proviso more so when it is fully in consonance with the provisions of Section 24(2). Section 24(2) completely obliterates the old regime to the effect of its field of operation. Under Section 24 (1)
(a), there is a partial lapse of the old regime because all proceedings, till the stage of award are preserved.
The award, in such proceedings, made after coming into force of the Act of 2013 has to take into account its provisions, for determination of compensation. Thus, proceedings upto the stage of the award are deemed final under the old Act. In the case under Section 24(1)(b), the old regime prevails. The proviso is an exception to Section 24(2) and in part the new regime for payment of higher compensation in case of default for 5 years or more after award.
In re: Proviso to be read as part of provision it is appended to.
197. The proviso thus, is not foreign to compensation to be paid under Section (24) (2). It provides what is dealt with in Section 24(2) and takes to its logical conclusion, and provides for higher compensation, where there is and can be no lapsing of acquisition Page No.22 of 29 proceedings. The rule of construction- as is clear from the preceding case law discussed, is that the proviso should be limited in its operation to the subject-matter in a clause. A proviso is ordinarily a proviso and has to be harmoniously construed with the provisions. In our opinion, the proviso is capable of being harmoniously construed with Section 24(2) and not with Section 24 (1) (b), once we interpret the word 'or' as 'nor' in Section 24(2).
198. In keeping with the ratio in the aforesaid decisions, this court is of the considered view that the proviso cannot nullify the provision of Section 24(1)(b) nor can it set at naught the real object of the enactment, but it can further by providing higher compensation, thus dealing with matters in Section 24 (2). Therefore, in effect, where award is not made [Section 24 (1)(a)] as well as where award is made but compensation is not deposited in respect of majority of the landowners in a notification (for acquisition) [i.e. proviso to Section 24 (2)] compensation is payable in terms of the new Act, i.e., Act of 2013.
199. For the aforesaid reasons, considering the placement of the proviso, semi-colon having been used at the end of Section 24(2), considering the interpretation of Section 24(1)(b) and the repugnancy which would be caused in case the proviso is lifted which is not permissible and particularly when we read the word 'or' as 'nor' in Section 24(2), it has to be placed where the legislature has legislated it, it has not been wrongly placed as part of Section 24(2) but is intended for beneficial results of higher compensation for one and all where there is no lapse, but amount not deposited as required. Higher compensation is contemplated by the Act of 2013, Page No.23 of 29 which intention is fully carried forward by the placement and interpretation.
In re Issue -3 : What is the meaning to be given to the word "paid" used in Section 24(2) and "deposited" used in the proviso to Section 24(2).
359. The entire gamut of submissions of the landowners is based on the misinterpretation of the provisions contained in Section 24. It does not intend to divest the State of possession (of the land), title to which has been vested in the State. It only intends to give higher compensation in case the obligation of depositing of compensation has not been fulfilled with regard to the majority of holdings. A fresh cause of action in Section 24 has been given if for five years or more possession has not been taken nor compensation has been paid. In case possession has been taken and compensation has not been deposited with respect to the majority of landholdings, higher compensation to all incumbents follows, as mentioned above. Section 24 does not confer a new cause of action to challenge the acquisition proceedings or the methodology adopted for the deposit of compensation in the treasury instead of Reference Court, in that case, interest or higher compensation, as the case may be, can follow. In our considered opinion, Section 24 is applicable to pending proceedings, not to the concluded proceedings and the legality of the concluded proceedings, cannot be questioned. Such a challenge does not lie within the ambit of the deemed lapse under Section 24. The lapse under Section 24(2) is due to inaction or lethargy of authorities in taking requisite steps as provided therein.
366. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we answer the questions as under:
366.1. x x x x Page No.24 of 29 366.2. x x x x 366.3. x x x x 366.4. The expression 'paid' in the main part of Section 24(2) of the Act of 2013 does not include a deposit of compensation in court. The consequence of non-deposit is provided in proviso to Section 24(2) in case it has not been deposited with respect to majority of land holdings then all beneficiaries (landowners) as on the date of notification for land acquisition under Section 4 of the Act of 1894 shall be entitled to compensation in accordance with the provisions of the Act of 2013. In case the obligation under Section 31 of the Land Acquisition Act of 1894 has not been fulfilled, interest under Section 34 of the said Act can be granted. Non-deposit of compensation (in court) does not result in the lapse of land acquisition proceedings.
In case of non-deposit with respect to the majority of holdings for five years or more, compensation under the Act of 2013 has to be paid to the "landowners" as on the date of notification for land acquisition under Section 4 of the Act of 1894.
366.5 In case a person has been tendered the compensation as provided under Section 31(1) of the Act of 1894, it is not open to him to claim that acquisition has lapsed under Section 24(2) due to non-payment or non-deposit of compensation in court. The obligation to pay is complete by tendering the amount under Section 31(1). The land owners who had refused to accept compensation or who sought reference for higher compensation, cannot claim that the acquisition proceedings had lapsed under Section 24(2) of the Act of 2013."
26. It is pleaded by the petitioners in all the cases in the petitions itself that after passing of the award dated 11.11.2013, the possession of Page No.25 of 29 the acquired land was taken by the respondents on 09.12.2013 without making payment of any compensation to them and in the later on development, the petitioners have received the amount of compensation under protest in the month of June, 2020. In the reply submitted by the respondents No.1 to 4, there is no such pleading that the amount of compensation was ever tendered to the petitioners and that the petitioners refused to accept the same. Neither there is any such pleading that the amount of compensation was deposited in the accounts of the petitioners. The specific pleadings of the petitioners that they have received compensation under protest in the month of June, 2020 has not been denied or challenged by the respondents side. As it is held by the Supreme Court in case of Indore Development Authority (Supra) that twin conditions under Section 24 (2) of the Act, 2013 have to be complied to bring the case of acquisition under the Act, 2013, on conditions that the award is passed within a period of five years or prior to the commencement of the Act, 2013, firstly that the physical possession of the land has not been taken and secondly that the compensation has not been paid to the beneficiaries. The Supreme Court has interpreted this provision that the word "or" in this provision which has to be read as "and", therefore, in the case of non-satisfaction of both these conditions, the proceeding of Land Acquisition Act, 1894 shall lapse in the particular case. In the admission/statement of the petitioners themselves, the land acquired was taken into possession by the respondents authorities on 09.12.2013, however, there pleading in the petitions remain intact that they were not paid any compensation, before the enactment of the Act, 2013 and neither Page No.26 of 29 they were ever tendered the compensation nor they have refused to receive the same prior to the June, 2020.
27. In case of Indore Development Authority (Supra), it has been held that the proviso to Section 24 (2) of the Act, 2013 does not nullify the provisions of Section 24 (1) (b) and this proviso is capable of being harmoniously construed with Section 24 (2) and not with Section 24 (1) (b) and is intended for beneficial results of higher compensation for one and all where there is no lapse, but amount was not deposited as required.
28. In case of Indore Development Authority (supra), the Supreme Court has observed in paragraph 226, which is as under :-
"226. Thus, in our opinion, the word "paid" used in Section 24(2) does not include within its meaning the word "deposited", which has been used in the proviso to Section 24(2). Section 31 of the Act of 1894, deals with the deposit as envisaged in Section 31(2) on being 'prevented' from making the payment even if the amount has been deposited in the treasury under the Rules framed under Section 55 or under the Standing Orders, that would carry the interest as envisaged under Section 34, but acquisition would not lapse on such deposit being made in the treasury. In case amount has been tendered and the landowner has refused to receive it, it cannot be said that the liability arising from non-payment of the amount is that of lapse of acquisition. Interest would follow in such a case also due to non-deposit of the amount. Equally, when the landowner does not accept the amount, but seeks a reference for higher compensation, there can be no question of such individual stating that he was not paid the amount (he was determined to be entitled Page No.27 of 29 to by the collector). In such case, the landowner would be entitled to the compensation determined by the Reference court.
In re: Rules framed under Section 55 and the Standing Orders issued by State Governments."
29. As held in this paragraph by the Supreme Court that Section 31 of the Act, 1894 deals with the deposit as envisaged in section 31 (2) of the Act, 1894. Section 31 (1) & (2) of the Act, 1894 is as follows :-
"31. Payment of compensation or deposit of same in Court.
(1) On making an award under section 11, the Collector shall tender payment of the compensation awarded by him to the persons interested entitled thereto according to the award, and shall pay it to them unless prevented by some one or more of the contingencies mentioned in the next sub-section.
(2) If they shall not consent to receive it, or if there be no person competent to alienate the land, or if there be any dispute as to the title to receive the compensation or as to the apportionment of it, the Collector shall deposit the amount of the compensation in the Court to which a reference under section 18 would be submitted:
Provided that any person admitted to be interested may receive such payment under protest as to the sufficiency of the amount:
Provided also that no person who has received the amount otherwise than under protest shall be entitled to make any application under section 18:
Provided also that nothing herein contained shall affect the liability of any person, who may receive the whole or any part of any compensation awarded under Page No.28 of 29 this Act, to pay the same to the person lawfully entitled thereto."
30. Section 31 (2) of the Act, 1894 specifically provides that when the amount is tendered and not received by the said beneficiaries or there is any dispute regarding the entitlement to receive compensation etc. in that case, the Collector shall deposit the amount of compensation in the Court. The word "deposit" has been interpreted by the Supreme Court in case of Indore Development Authority (supra), which is different from the word "paid" In the reply submitted by respondent No.1 to 4, there is no such statement or pleading that ever the petitioners were tendered with the amount of compensation and they refused to accept the same or subsequent to that the amount was deposited with the land acquisition Court.
31. The petitioners have filed the documents regarding receipt of compensation, which does not mention the mode in which the compensation was paid to them, either it was tendered or deposited in their accounts. Further there is no such pleading present in the reply and affidavit of the respondents side to show that the amount of compensation was ever deposited in the Court of land acquisition officer. Hence, in such a case, the proviso of Section 24 (2) of the Act, 2013 comes into play. Although it will be deemed that the proceeding under the Act, 1894 has continued under Section 24 (1)
(b), which has not lapsed. Further out of the twin conditions as provided under Section 24 (1), one of the conditions of taking possession of the acquired land has been met with, therefore, the proceeding, under the Act, 1894 shall not lapse on this count also. As interpreted by the Supreme Court in case of Indore Development Page No.29 of 29 Authority (Supra), the proviso to Sub-section (24) (2) of the Act, 2013 has to be construed independently and the beneficiaries concerned have entitlement to receive compensation in accordance with the provision of this Act. The receipt of compensation by the petitioners in the year 2020 shall not operate as bar as the specific words in this proviso is that the amount of compensation has to be deposited in the account of the beneficiaries, which appears to be not complied by the respondents side.
32. On the basis of these considerations and the law as settled by the Supreme Court in case of Indore Development Authority, it is held that the petitioners have entitlement to be compensated under the norms of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation & Resettlement Act, 2013, as they have been found to be entitled for such compensation under the proviso to Section 24 (2) of the Act, 2013.
33. Hence, all the petitions are allowed. The petitioners are granted liberty to make representation to the respondents No.1, 2 and 3 within a time limit of 30 days. On filing of such representation, the respondent No.1 to 3 shall be obliged to consider on the same and determined the compensation under the provisions of the Act, 2013 at the earliest preferably within a time limit of 120 days from the date of filing of the representations.
Sd/-
(Rajendra Chandra Singh Samant) Judge Monika / Balram