Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 7, Cited by 5]

Chattisgarh High Court

Kuldeep Suktel vs State Of Chhattisgarh 109 ... on 27 November, 2018

Author: Prashant Kumar Mishra

Bench: Prashant Kumar Mishra

                               1

                                                             NAFR

    HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

                    WPC No. 791 of 2016

1. Gaukaran S/o Shri Sukul, Aged About 45 Years

2. Khelan Chelak, S/o Shri Budhram, Aged About 75 Years

3. Atma Ram, S/o Shri Lila Ram, Aged About 70 Years

4. Manoj Kumar S/o Shri Atma Ram, Aged About 46 Years

5. Smt. Bharti Puruswani, W/o Manoj Puruswani, aged about 42
    years

6. Pun Das, S/o Shri Mansa Ram, Aged About 70 Years

7. Smt. Sakun Sinha, W/o Shri Khedan Sinha, Aged About 50 Years

8. Pyari Bai Patel D/o Shri Punit Ram, Aged About 45 Years

  All are R/o Gram Riko, P.H. No. 21 Tahsil Arang, District Raipur
  Chhattisgarh

                                                    ---- Petitioner

                           Versus

1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of
    Housing And Environment, Mantralaya, Naya Raipur, Raipur
    Chhattisgarh

2. Department Of Agriculture And Animal Husbandry, Through
   Secretary, Mantralaya, Naya Raipur, Raipur Chhattisgarh

3. District Collector Cum Officiating Dy. Secretary, Government Of
   Chhattisgarh Collectorate, Raipur Chhattisgarh

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

5. Land Acquisition Officer / Sub Divisional Officer, Tahsil Arang,
    Abhanpur, Civil And Revenue District Raipur Chhattisgarh

6. Commissioner, Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh

                                                  ---- Respondent
WPC No. 493 of 2014 2

1. Kuldeep Suktel S/o Bharat Lal Suktel Aged About 36 Years

2. Lukeshwar Prasad Sahu, son of Tula Ram Sahu, aged about 38 years

3. Budharu Markandey S/o Mangiya Ram Markandey Aged About 40 Years

4. Deman Lal Suktel S/o Bharat Lal Suktel Aged About 41 Years

5. Ashwani Kumar Suktel S/o Kamta Prasad Suktel Aged About 50 Years

6. Kamlesh Kumar Suktel S/o Kamta Prasas Suktel Aged About 41 Years

7. Tularam Sahu S/o Late Budhram Aged About 59 Years

8. Santosh Kumar Sahu S/o Tularam Aged About 45 Years

9. Bhagwati Prasad Sahu S/o Late Budhram Aged About 50 Years

10. Ramdulari Sahu W/o Bhagwati Prasad Sahu Aged About 46 Years

11. Parmeshwar Sinha S/o Late Bhawani Ram Sinha Aged About 65 Years

12. Bisahin Bai Sahu W/o Balaram Sahu Aged About 55 Years

13. Udal Nishad S/o Late Govind Rai Nishad Aged About 61 Years

14. Dhan Singh Nishad S/o Late Govind Rai Nishad Aged About 59 Years

15. Sahdev Deshmukh S/o Manrakhan Kurmi Aged About 55 Years

16. Ramadhar Yadav S/o Late Ghasiya Yadav Aged About 60 Years

17. Domar Singh Sahu S/o Late Manohar Sahu Aged About 60 Years

18. Chhabiram Sahu S/o Late Lakhan Sahu Aged About 28 Years

19. Devalal Yadav S/o Late Chhotulal Yadav Aged About 60 Years

20. Vishram Sinha S/o Late Balluram Sinha Aged About 70 Years

21. Ajay Sinha S/o Late Ishwar Prasad Sinha Aged About 38 Years

22. Khedan Lal Sinha S/o Late Bisouha Sinha Aged About 62 Years

23. Punit Ram Sinha S/o Late Bisouha Sinha Aged About 55 Years

24. Ganesh Ram Yadav S/o Late Keju Ram Yadav Aged About 55 3 Years

25. Ram Singh Nishad S/o Late Govind Rai Nishad Aged About 52 Years

26. Krishna Kumar Yadav S/o Late Rambagas Yadav Aged About 39 Years

27. Tijau Ram Sinha S/o Late Bhawani Ram Sinha Aged About 75 Years

28. Trilochan Yadav S/o Late Ram Asara Yadav Aged About 50 Years

29. Paras Ram Sahu S/o Late Ram Bharosa Sahu Aged About 49 Years

30. Dhirendra Yadav S/o Late Vishram Yadav Aged About 24 Years

31. Pradeep Kumar Suktel S/o Dilip Singh Suktel Aged About 37 Years

32. Mukesh Kumar Suktel S/o Dilip Singh Suktel Aged About 30 Years

33. Ku. Priyanka Suktel D/o Late Chandrashekhar Suktel Aged About 18 Years

34. Somnath Sahu S/o Ramlal Sahu Aged About 52 Years

35. Bisahu Ram Patel S/o Late Sukhiram Patel Aged About 63 Years

36. Shrinivas Suktel S/o Tilak Ram Aged About 55 Years

37. Ravikant Deshmukh S/o Sahdev Deshmukh Aged About 33 Years

38. Girija Bai Deshmukh W/o Sahdev Deshmukh Aged About 50 Years

39. Suresh Yadav S/o Late Chinta Ram Yadav, Aged About 39 Years

40. Sushila Bai Suktel W/o Gaya Prasad Suktel Aged About 61 Years

41. Gaya Prasad Suktel S/o Late Bhukhan Lal Suktel Aged About 70 Years

42. Ramkisun @ Kisun Yadu S/o Late Ghasiya Yadu, Aged About 65 Years

43. Urmila Deshmukh W/o Bishelal Deshmukh Aged About 60 Years

44. Suresh Kumar Deshmukh S/o Bishelal Deshmukh Aged About 38 Years 4

45. Chovalal Markandey S/o Mangiya Ram Markandey Aged About 45 Years

46. Mangla Ram Karkande S/o Late Dhanva Markandey Aged About 56 Years

47. Kanti Bai Manikpuri W/o Miththudas Manikpuri Aged About 56 Years

48. Mohan Das Manikpuri S/o Mankudas Manikpuri Aged About 63 Years

49. Ganesh Ram Chelak S/o Late Ghasiya Chelak, Aged About 35 Years

50. Kamta Yadav S/o Late Ram Asara Yadav Aged About 65 Years

51. Mangiya Ram Markandey S/o Late Dhanva Ram Markandey Aged About 70 Years

52. Nakul Markandey S/o Late Sukhiram Markandey Aged About 28 Years

53. Budhelal Markandey S/o Mangiya Ram Markandey Aged About 45 Years

54. Sandeep Kumar Markandey S/o Budhelal Markandey Aged About 21 Years

55. Teekam Yadav S/o Late Ram Asara Yadav Aged About 62 Years

56. Durga Prasad Mirche S/o Late Bhagwat Aged About 38 Years

57. Ramrati Banjare S/o Bishambhar Banjare Aged About 75 Years

58. Suraj Singh Markandey S/o Kunwar Singh Markandey Aged About 21 Years

59. Suklal Markandey S/o Late Jhadu Ram Markandey Aged About 50 Years

60. Derhin Bai Yadav W/o Late Bodhan Yadav Aged About 60 Years

61. Sattu Yadav S/o Late Laxman Yadav Aged About 44 Years

62. Sanjay Sinha S/o late Ishwar Sinha Aged About 51 Years

63. Rambai Sinha W/o Late Ishwar Sinha Aged About 70 Years

64. Bhikham Yadav S/o Late Ram Asara Yadav Aged About 55 Years

65. Kishan Thethwar S/o Late Laxman Thethwar Aged About 61 Years 5

66. Punit Patel S/o Late Prem Patel Aged About 62 Years

67. Phekan Bai Yadu Wd/o late Rambagas Yadu Aged About 80 Years

68. Krishna Kumar @ Chaman Prakash S/o Gaya Prakash Suktel Aged About 36 Years

69. Man Bai Banjare W/o Nand Kumar Banjare Aged About 46 Years

70. Pyari Jangade W/o Babulal Aged About 60 Years

71. Bhagwat Prasad Yadav S/o Late Prem Yadav Aged About 40 Years

72. Manrakhan Jangde S/o Late Gaya Ram Jangade Aged About 56 Years

73. Ramratan Sahu, Son of late Gulab Sahu, aged about 80 years

74. Rajkumar, Son of Sufal Dhritlahare, aged about 45 years, All are R/o Village Reeko, Tehsil Arang, PS Mandir Hasoud, Civil and Revenue District Raipur (CG)

---- Petitioner Versus

1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of Housing And Environment, Mantralaya, Naya Raipur Chhattisgarh

2. Department Of Agriculture And Animal Husbandry, Through Secretary Mantralaya Naya Raipur Chhattisgarh

3. District Collector Collectorate Raipur Chhattisgarh

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

5. Land Acquisition Officer / Sub Divisional Officer Tahsil Aarag Abhanpur, Civil And Revenue Distt. Raipur Chhattisgarh

---- Respondent WPC No. 3246 of 2017

1. Kuldeep Suktel S/o Bharat Lal Suktel Aged About 39 Years

2. Lukeshwar Prasad Sahu S/o Tula Ram Sahu Aged About 41 Years 6

3. Budharu Markandey S/o Mangiya Ram Markandey Aged About 43 Years

4. Deman Lal Suktel S/o Bharat Lal Suktel Aged About 44 Years

5. Ashwani Kumar Suktel S/o Kamta Prasad Suktel Aged About 53 Years

6. Kamlesh Kumar Suktel S/o Kamta Prasas Suktel Aged About 44 Years

7. Tularam Sahu S/o Late Budhram Aged About 62 Years

8. Santosh Kumar Sahu S/o Tularam Aged About 48 Years

9. Bhagwati Prasad Sahu S/o Late Budhram Aged About 53 Years

10. Parmeshwar Sinha S/o Late Bhawani Ram Sinha Aged About 68 Years

11. Bisahin Bai Sahu W/o Balaram Sahu Aged About 58 Years

12. Udal Kewat S/o Late Govind Rai Kewat Aged About 64 Years

13. Dhan Singh Nishad S/o Late Govind Rai Nishad Aged About 62 Years

14. Sahdev Deshmukh S/o Late Manrakhan Kurmi, Aged About 58 Years

15. Ramadhar Yadav S/o Late Ghasiya Yadav Aged About 63 Years

16. Domar Singh Sahu S/o Late Manohar Sahu Aged About 63 Years

17. Chhabiram Sahu S/o Late Lakhan Sahu Aged About 31 Years

18. Devalal Yadav S/o Late Chhotulal Yadav Aged About 63 Years

19. Vishram Sinha S/o Late Balluram Sinha Aged About 73 Years

20. Ajay Sinha S/o Late Ishwar Prasad Sinha Aged About 41 Years

21. Khedan Lal Sinha S/o Late Bisouha Sinha Aged About 65 Years

22. Ram Singh Kewat S/o Late Govind Rai Kewat Aged About 58 Years

23. Krishna Kumar Yadav S/o Late Rambagas Yadav, Aged About 42 Years

24. Paras Ram Sahu S/o Late Ram Bharosa Sahu Aged About 52 Years 7

25. Dhirendra Yadav S/o Late Vishram Yadav Aged About 27 Years

26. Pradeep Kumar Suktel S/o Dilip Singh Suktel Aged About 40 Years

27. Mukesh Kumar Suktel S/o Dilip Singh Suktel Aged About 33 Years

28. Ku. Priyanka Suktel D/o Late Chandrashekhar Suktel Aged About 21 Years

29. Somnath Sahu S/o Late Ramlal Sahu Aged About 55 Years

30. Ravikant Deshmukh S/o Sahdev Deshmukh Aged About 36 Years

31. Smt. Girija Bai Deshmukh W/o Sahdev Deshmukh Aged About 53 Years

32. Suresh Yadav S/o Late Chinta Ram Yadav Aged About 42 Years

33. Sushila Bai Suktel W/o Gaya Prasad Suktel Aged About 64 Years

34. Gaya Prasad Suktel S/o Late Bhukhan Lal Suktel Aged About 73 Years

35. Kisun Yadu @ Ramkisun S/o Late Ghasiya Yadu Aged About 68 Years

36. Urmila Deshmukh W/o Bishelal Deshmukh Aged About 63 Years

37. Chovalal Markandey S/o Mangiya Ram Markandey Aged About 48 Years

38. Mangla Ram Karkande S/o Late Dhanva Markandey Aged About 59 Years

39. Kanti Bai Manikpuri W/o Miththudas Manikpuri, Aged About 59 Years

40. Mangiya Ram Markandey S/o Late Dhanva Ram Markandey Aged About 73 Years

41. Budhelal Markandey S/o Mangiya Ram Markandey Aged About 48 Years

42. Sandeep Kumar Markandey S/o Budhelal Markandey Aged About 24 Years

43. Ramrati Banjare S/o Bishambhar Banjare Aged About 78 Years

44. Suraj Singh Markandey S/o Kunwar Singh Markandey Aged About 24 Years 8

45. Suklal Markandey S/o Late Jhadu Ram Markandey Aged About 53 Years

46. Derhin Bai Yadav W/o Late Bodhan Yadav Aged About 63 Years

47. Sattu Yadav S/o Late Laxman Yadav Aged About 47 Years

48. Sanjay Sinha S/o Late Ishwar Sinha Aged About 54 Years

49. Kishan Thethwar S/o Late Laxman Thethwar Aged About 64 Years

50. Chaman Prakash @ Krishna Kumar S/o Gaya Prasad Suktel Aged About 39 Years

51. Bhagwat Prasad Yadav S/o Late Prem Yadav Aged About 43 Years

52. Manrakhan Jangade S/o Late Gaya Ram Jangade, Aged About 59 Years

53. Rajkumar S/o Sufal Dhritlahare Aged About 48 Years All are R/o Village Reeko, Tahsil Arang, Police Station Mandir Hasoud, District Raipur Chhattisgarh.

---- Petitioner Versus

1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Panchayat And Rural Development Department, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, New Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh

2. Collector District Raipur Chhattisgarh

3. Additional Collector, District Raipur Chhattisgarh

4. General Manager District Cooperative Central Bank Limited, Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh

5. President, State Cooperative Distribution Union, Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh

6. Manager / Branch Manager, Sahkari Samiti, Mandir Hasaud, District Raipur Chhattisgarh

---- Respondent 9 For Respective Mr. Sanjay Kumar Agarwal, Mrs. Hameeda Petitioners Siddique and Mr. Akhilesh Mishra, Advocates For Respective Mr. Shashank Thakur, Govt. Advocate, Mr. Respondents SC Verma, Mr. Praveen Das, Mr. Parag Kotecha, Advocates Order On Board By Hon'ble Mr. Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra 27/11/2018

1. Heard.

2. At the outset, Mr. Akhilesh Mishra, Advocate, who has moved application (IA No.4) for change of counsel for petitioners 3 to 5 namely Atma Ram, Manoj Kumar and Smt. Bharti Puruswani in WPC No.791/2016, would seek permission of the Court to withdraw the application.

3. The said application is therefore dismissed, as withdrawn.

4. Similarly, Mr. Parag Kotecha, learned counsel, who has moved an application for intervention (IA No.3) and for issuance of appropriate direction for disbursement of compensation as per award on behalf of two of the beneficiaries namely Siddharth Durbar and Pankaj Kocheta, in WPC No.791 of 2016, would seek permission of the Court to withdraw the intervention application.

5. Accordingly, IA No.3 filed in WPC No.791 of 2016 for intervention is dismissed, as withdrawn. The interveners would be at liberty to draw their further course of action in respect of 10 the award.

6. The petitioners have prayed for quashment of the entire land acquisition proceedings in Land Acquisition Case No.8/82 of the year 2012-13, Village Riko, PH No.22, Tehsil Arang District Raipur, together with the Notification under Section 4 and declaration under Section 6, both under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (in short "the Act, 1894" or "old Act") as well as the award dated 31.12.2015 passed under Section 23 of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition and Resettlement Act, 2013 (in short "the Act, 2013" or "new Act").

7. The undisputed chronology of the land acquisition proceedings is that a Notification under Section 4 of the Act, 1894 was issued on 21.3.2013 for proposed acquisition of 128.39 hectares of land for public purpose i.e. for development of Naya Raipur.

8. Before the land acquisition proceedings could proceed further under the Act, 1894, the Act, 2013 came into force w.e.f. 1.1.2014. Under Section 24 of the Act, 2013, the land acquisition proceedings could have been continued under the said Act, however, the Land Acquisition Officer chose to issue a declaration under Section 6 of the old Act on 3.1.2014. Treating this to be declaration under Section 19 of the New Act, the Land Acquisition Officer proceeded in the matter and eventually passed an award on 31.12.2015.

9. On the basis of the above chronology, it is argued that under Section 25 of the New Act, the award is necessarily to be passed 11 within a period of 12 months from the date of declaration under Section 19, therefore, even if the declaration under Section 6 of the old Act is treated to be a declaration under Section 19 of the new Act, the award should have been passed on or before 3.1.2015. However, the same having not been done, the rigor of Section 25 would come to operate against the land acquisition proceedings.

10. Learned counsel for the respective respondents would submit that since the compensation has been assessed under the New Act, the petitioners are not prejudiced, therefore, the writ petitions have no substance.

11. It is the settled law that the thing which is required to be done under a statute shall be done in the manner provided therein or not at all. (See Meera Sahni Vs. Lieutenant Governor of Delhi and others, (2008) 9 SCC 177).

12. In the matters of land acquisition, the mandatory provisions are required to be followed and the holder of the land cannot be accused of acquiescing the matter or being estopped from challenging the same only on the ground that the compensation has been assessed fairly under the new Act.

13. If the law mandates that the award has to be passed within a period of 12 months from the date of declaration under Section 19, the same has to be followed in letter and spirit and no deviation is permitted on plain reading of the language implied under Section 25.

12

14. In view of the above and since the main operative part of Section 25 prescribes that if the award is not passed within 12 months, the entire proceedings for acquisition of the land shall lapse, I have no hesitation in quashing the entire land acquisition proceedings.

15. Accordingly, the land acquisition proceedings in WPC Nos. WPC Nos.791/2016 and 493/2014 are quashed. The respondents would be at liberty to draw fresh proceedings, if they still require any land for public purpose.

16. Since the subject land is agricultural land and the petitioners are cultivating the land, there would be difficulty for them to sell paddy through the Cooperative Society and other Government Agencies. Therefore, till the new land acquisition proceeding is drawn and the award is passed, the revenue entries shall be corrected reflecting the name of the petitioners in the said record.

17. Accordingly, WPC Nos.791/2016 and 493/2014 are allowed and WPC No.3246/2017, wherein, the petitioners have prayed for permission to sell paddy to the Government, is disposed of.

Sd/-

(Prashant Kumar Mishra) Judge Shyna