Chattisgarh High Court
J. R. Chourasia vs Omkar Singh Virdi (Died) Through Legal ... on 8 May, 2024
Bench: Ramesh Sinha, Rajani Dubey
Neutral Citation
2024:CGHC:16652-DB
1
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
WA No. 359 of 2020
J. R. Chourasia, S/o Late Shri L.R. Chourasia, Aged About 61 Years
Earlier Working As Sub - Divisional Officer And Land Acquisition Officer,
Gharghoda, District Raigarh Chhattisgarh. Currently Working As
Additional Collector, Gariyaband Chhattisgarh.
---- Appellant
Versus
1. Omkar Singh Virdi (Died) Through Legal Heirs- As Per Honble
Court Order Dated 11/10/2023
1.1 Paramjeet Kaur D/o Late Omkar Singh Virdi
1.2 Gurjeet Kaur D/o Late Omkar Singh Virdi
1.3 Baljeet Kaur D/o Late Omkar Singh Virdi
1.4 Jasvinder Kaur D/o Omkar Singh Virdi
1.5 Smt. Ranjeet Kaur W/o Late Rana Randip Singh Virdhi (who is son
of Late Omkar Singh Virdhi)
1.6 Montek Singh Virdi S/o Late Rana Randip Singh Virdi Aged About
50 Years (Who Is Son Of Late Omkar Singh Virdi)
1.7 - Anhad Kaur D/o Late Shri Rana Pratap Singh Virdi (Who Is Son Of
Late Omkar Singh Virdi)
All are residents of Near Lal Tanki, Bohidar Para, Raigarh, District
Raigarh (C.G.)
2. Shrawan Singh Virdi (Died) Through Legal Heirs- As Per Honble
Court Order Dated 11/10/2023
2.1 - Smt. Jayotinder Kaur Virdi Wd/o Late Shrawan Singh Virdi Aged
About 70 Years, R/o Near Lal Tanki, Bohidar Para, Raigarh, District-
Raigarh (C.G.)
2.2 - Gurvinder Kaur D/o Late Shrawan Singh Virdi
2.3 - Ravinder Kaur D/o Late Shrawan Singh Virdi
Neutral Citation
2024:CGHC:16652-DB
2
2.4 - Kamaljeet Kaur D/o Late Shrawan Singh Virdi
All are residents of Near Lal Tanki, Bohidar Para, Raigarh, District-
Raigargh (C.G.).
3. Jujhjar Singh Virdi (Wrongly Mentioned As Jakara Singh In The
Award) S/o Jeewan Singh, Aged About 54 Years Incharge Sub
Divisional Officer, Kelo Sub Division, Raigarh, R/o Near Lal Tanki,
Bohidar Para, Raigarh, District Raigarh Chhattisgarh.
4. Geeta Devi, W/o Late Shri Pramod Kumar, Aged About 51 Years
R/o Near Jute Mill, Raigarh, District Raigarh Chhattisgarh.
5. Shanti Bai (Died) Through Her Legal Heir As Per The Hon'ble
Court Order Dated 20-09-2021 And 11-10-2023.
5.1 - Radha Devi D/o Late Shanti Bai
5.2 Premlata D/o Late Shanti Bai
5.3 - Sharda Devi D/o Late Shanti Bai
5.4 - Pramod Kumar S/o Late Shanti Bai
5.5 Natwar Lal Agrawal S/o Late Ratan Lal and Late Shanti Bai,
aged about 59 years.
All are residents of Ward No. 19, Near Gandhi Pratima, Station
Road, Raigarh, District Raigarh (Chhattisgarh)
6. Rakesh Kumar Agrawal (Wrongly Mentioned As Rajesh Kumar
Agrawal In The Award ) S/o Late Shri Pramod Kumar Agrawal, Aged
About 30 Years, R/o Near Jute Mill, Raigarh Chhattisgarh.
7. State of Chhattisgarh, Through The Secretary, Department Of
Revenue, D K S Bhawan, Now At Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya,
Nawa Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh.
8. Commissioner (Revenue), Bilaspur Division, Bilaspur
Chhattisgarh., District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh
9. Collector, Raigarh, District Raigarh Chhattisgarh.
---- Respondents
WA No. 360 of 2020
S. K. Sharma, S/o Late Shri R. K. Sharma, Aged About 66 Years Earlier Working As Collector, Raigarh Chhattisgarh. R/o Vinoba Nagar, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh.
---- Appellant Versus Neutral Citation 2024:CGHC:16652-DB 3
1. Omkar Singh Virdi (Died) Through Legal Heirs- As Per Honble Court Order Dated 11/10/2023 1.1 Paramjeet Kaur D/o Late Omkar Singh Virdi 1.2 Gurjeet Kaur D/o Late Omkar Singh Virdi 1.3 Baljeet Kaur D/o Late Omkar Singh Virdi 1.4 Jasvinder Kaur D/o Omkar Singh Virdi 1.5 Smt. Ranjeet Kaur W/o Late Rana Randip Singh Virdhi (who is son of Late Omkar Singh Virdhi) 1.6 Montek Singh Virdi S/o Late Rana Randip Singh Virdi Aged About 50 Years (Who Is Son Of Late Omkar Singh Virdi) 1.7 Anhad Kaur D/o Late Shri Rana Pratap Singh Virdi (Who Is Son Of Late Omkar Singh Virdi) All are residents of Near Lal Tanki, Bohidar Para, Raigarh, District Raigarh (C.G.)
2. Shrawan Singh Virdi (Died) Through Legal Heirs- As Per Honble Court Order Dated 11/10/2023 2.1 Smt. Jayotinder Kaur Virdi Wd/o Late Shrawan Singh Virdi Aged About 70 Years, R/o Near Lal Tanki, Bohidar Para, Raigarh, District- Raigarh (C.G.) 2.2 Gurvinder Kaur D/o Late Shrawan Singh Virdi 2.3 Ravinder Kaur D/o Late Shrawan Singh Virdi 2.4 Kamaljeet Kaur D/o Late Shrawan Singh Virdi All are residents of Near Lal Tanki, Bohidar Para, Raigarh, District- Raigargh (C.G.).
3. Jujhjar Singh Virdi (Wrongly Mentioned As Jakara Singh In The Award) S/o Jeewan Singh, Aged About 54 Years Incharge Sub Divisional Officer, Kelo Sub Division, Raigarh, R/o Near Lal Tanki, Bohidar Para, Raigarh, District Raigarh Chhattisgarh.
4. Geeta Devi, W/o Late Shri Pramod Kumar, Aged About 51 Years R/o Near Jute Mill, Raigarh, District Raigarh Chhattisgarh.
5. Shanti Bai (Died) Through Her Legal Heir As Per The Hon'ble Court Order Dated 20-09-2021 And 11-10-2023. 5.1 Radha Devi D/o Late Shanti Bai 5.2 Premlata D/o Late Shanti Bai Neutral Citation 2024:CGHC:16652-DB 4 5.3 Sharda Devi D/o Late Shanti Bai 5.4 - Pramod Kumar S/o Late Shanti Bai 5.5 Natwar Lal Agrawal S/o Late Ratan Lal and Late Shanti Bai, aged about 59 years.
All are residents of Ward No. 19, Near Gandhi Pratima, Station Road, Raigarh, District Raigarh (Chhattisgarh)
6. Rakesh Kumar Agrawal (Wrongly Mentioned As Rajesh Kumar Agrawal In The Award ) S/o Late Shri Pramod Kumar Agrawal, Aged About 30 Years R/o Near Jute Mill, Raigarh Chhattisgarh., District :
Raigarh, Chhattisgarh
7. State of Chhattisgarh, Through The Secretary, Department Of Revenue, D K S Bhawan, Now At Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Nawa Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh
8. Commissioner (Revenue), Bilaspur Division, Bilaspur Chhattisgarh., District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh
9. Sub - Divisional Officer And Land Revenue Officer, Gharghoda, District Raigarh Chhattisgarh., District : Raigarh, Chhattisgarh
---- Respondents WA No. 396 of 2020
1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of Revenue, D K S Bhawan, Mantralaya, Raipur Chhattisgarh,......(Respondent No.
1)
2. The Commissioner (Revenue) Bilaspur Division, Bilaspur Chhattisgarh,........(Respondent No. 2)
3. The Collector, Raigarh, Chhattisgarh,........(Respondent No. 3)
4. The Sub Divisional Officer And Land Acquisition Officer Gharghoda, District Raigarh Chhattisgarh,..........(Respondent No. 4)
---- Appellants Versus
1. (Dead) Omkar Singh Virdi, Through Legal Heir As Per Honble Court Order Dated 11-10-2023.
1(A) Paramjeet Kaur D/o Late Omkar Singh Virdi 1 (B) Gurjeet Kaur D/o Late Omkar Singh Virdi 1 ( C)Baljeet Kaur D/o Late Omkar Singh Virdi 1 (D) Jasvinder Kaur D/o Late Omkar Singh Virdi Neutral Citation 2024:CGHC:16652-DB 5 1 (E) Smt. Ranjeet Kaur W/o Late Randeep Singh Virdi (who is son of Late Omkar Singh Virdi) 1 (F) Mantek Singh Virdi S/o Late Rana Randeep Singh Virdi Aged About 50 Years (Who Is Son Of Late Omkar Singh Virdi) District
1.(G) Anhad Kaur D/o Late Shri Rana Randeep Singh Virdi (Who Is S/o Late Omkar Singh Virdi), Residents No. 1(A) to 1 (G), All are R/o Near Lal Tanki, Bohidar Para, Raigarh, District Raigarh (C.G.)
2. (Dead) Shrawan Singh Virdi, Through Legal Heir. As Per Honble Court Order Dated 11-10-2023.
2 (A) Smt. Jayotinder Kaur Virdi W/o Late Shrawan Singh Virdi 2(B) Gurvinder Kaur D/o Late Shri Shrawan Singh Virdi 2(C) Ravinder Kaur D/o Late Shri Shrawan Singh Virdi 2(D) Kamaljeet Kaur D/o Late Shri Shrawan Singh Virdi Residents No. 2(A) to 2(D) all are R/o Near Lal Tanki, Bohidar Para, Raigarh District Raigarh Chhattisgarh
3. Jujhjar Singh Virdi S/o Jeewan Singh, Aged About 54 Years In-Charge Sub Divisional Officer, Kelo Sub Divison, Raigarh, R/o Near Lal Tanki, Bohidar Para, Raigarh District Raigarh Chhattisgarh,..........(Petitioner No. 3)
4. Geeta Devi W/o Late Shri Pramod Kumar Aged About 51 Years R/o Near Jute Mill, Raigarh District Raigarh Chhattisgarh,...........(Petitioner No. 4)
5. (Dead) Shanti Bai, Through Legal Heir As Per Honble Court Order Dated 11-10-2023.
5(A) Radha Devi D/o Late Shanti Bai 5.(B) Premlata D/o Late Shanti Bai 5.(C) Sharda Devi D/o Late Shanti Bai 5.(D) Pramod Kumar S/o Late Shnati Bai 5.(E) Natwar Lal S/o Late Shanti Bai
Respondents No. 5(A) to 5(E) all are residents of Ward No. 19, Near Gandhi Pratima, Station Road, Raigarh, District- Raigarh (C.G.)
6. Rakesh Kumar Agrawal S/o Late Shri Pramod Kumar Agrawal Aged About 30 Years R/o Near Jute Mill Raigarh Chhattisgarh,........(Petitioner No. 6)
---- Respondents WA No. 82 of 2021 Rajendra Prasad Jain S/o Late Shri Nemi Chand Jain Aged About 65 Years, Former Commissioner (Revenue) Bilaspur Division , R/o 13/13, Neutral Citation 2024:CGHC:16652-DB 6 Rishabh Nagar, Durg , District Durg Chhattisgarh.
---- Appellant Versus
1. (Dead) Omkar Singh Virdi, Through Legal Heir As Per Honble Court Order Dated 11-10-2023.
Paramjeet Kaur D/o Late Omkar Singh Virdi Gurjeet Kaur D/o Late Omkar Singh Virdi Baljeet Kaur D/o Late Omkar Singh Virdi Jasvinder Kaur D/o Late Omkar Singh Virdi Smt. Ranjeet Kaur W/o Late Randeep Singh Virdi (who is son of Late Omkar Singh Virdi) Mantek Singh Virdi S/o Late Rana Randeep Singh Virdi Aged About 50 Years (Who Is Son Of Late Omkar Singh Virdi) District Anhad Kaur D/o Late Shri Rana Randeep Singh Virdi (Who Is S/o Late Omkar Singh Virdi), All are R/o Near Lal Tanki, Bohidar Para, Raigarh, District Raigarh (C.G.)
2. (Dead) Shrawan Singh Virdi, Through Legal Heir. As Per Honble Court Order Dated 11-10-2023.
Smt. Jayotinder Kaur Virdi W/o Late Shrawan Singh Virdi Gurvinder Kaur D/o Late Shri Shrawan Singh Virdi Ravinder Kaur D/o Late Shri Shrawan Singh Virdi Kamaljeet Kaur D/o Late Shri Shrawan Singh Virdi All are R/o Near Lal Tanki, Bohidar Para, Raigarh District Raigarh Chhattisgarh.
3. Jujhjar Singh Virdi S/o Jeewan Singh, Aged About 54 Years In-Charge Sub Divisional Officer, Kelo Sub Divison, Raigarh, R/o Near Lal Tanki, Bohidar Para, Raigarh District Raigarh Chhattisgarh,..........(Petitioner No. 3)
4. Geeta Devi W/o Late Shri Pramod Kumar Aged About 51 Years R/o Near Jute Mill, Raigarh District Raigarh Chhattisgarh,...........(Petitioner No. 4)
5. (Dead) Shanti Bai, Through Legal Heir As Per Honble Court Order Neutral Citation 2024:CGHC:16652-DB 7 Dated 11-10-2023.
Radha Devi D/o Late Shanti Bai Premlata D/o Late Shanti Bai Sharda Devi D/o Late Shanti Bai Pramod Kumar S/o Late Shanti Bai Natwar Lal Agrawal S/o Late Ratan Lal and Late Shanti Bai, aged about 59 years.
All are residents of Ward No. 19, Near Gandhi Pratima, Station Road, Raigarh, District- Raigarh (C.G.)
6. Rakesh Kumar Agrawal S/o Late Shri Pramod Kumar Agrawal Aged About 30 Years R/o Near Jute Mill Raigarh Chhattisgarh,........(Petitioner No. 6)
7. State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary Department Of Revenue Dks Bhawan, Mantralaya, Raipur Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh
8. Collector Raigarh Chhattisgarh., District : Raigarh, Chhattisgarh
9. Sub Divisional Officer And Land Acquisition Officer Gharghoda, District Raigarh Chhattisgarh.
---- Respondents (Cause title taken from Case Information System) For Appellants : Mr. Vaibhav Shukla, Advocate in WA Nos.359/2020 & 360/2020, Mr. R.S. Marhas, Advocate in WA No. 396/2020, Mr. V.V.S. Murthy, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Shantanu Kumar in WA No.82/2021 For Respective Respondents : Mr. Amit Sharma and Mr. Aniket Verma, Advocates Neutral Citation 2024:CGHC:16652-DB 8 Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Smt. Rajani Dubey, Judge Order on Board Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice 08.05.2024
1. Since the issues involved in this writ appeals are same, therefore, they are being heard together and decided by this common order.
2. The appellants have filed the appeals being aggrieved by the order dated 12.03.2020 passed in W.P.(C) No. 3708/2010 whereby the learned Single Judge allowed the petition filed by the writ petitioners entitling the petitioners to cost of Rs.50,000/- payable by the respondent- State and taking appropriate disciplinary proceedings against the concerned SDO, Collector and Commissioner posted and working in the said office as on 29.05.2010.
3. In WA Nos. 359/2020, 360/2020 & 82/2021, learned counsel for the appellants jointly submit that the learned Single Judge failed to appreciate the fact that as per Chhattisgarh Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1976 no order of recovery could be made against the appellants as no pecuniary loss has been caused to the State or to the Writ Petitioners. Learned Single Judge ought to have appreciated the fact that appellants cannot be held personally liable for any irregularity in the Land Acquisition proceedings as they were discharging the government functions in public interest. No conclusive material or evidence was found in the original records so as to conclude that the award was antedated by the appellants. There were lapses on the part of clerks in the office of Commissioner, Bilaspur in respect of mentioning the complete details of receiving and outgoing of the records in the office register but the same cannot be sole reason for making the appellants Neutral Citation 2024:CGHC:16652-DB 9 personally liable. No presumption and assumption can be drawn against the appellants merely because no recital has been mentioned in front of dates mentioned in the register placed in the office of the Commissioner. The learned Single Judge failed to appreciate the fact that the writ petitioners challenged the land acquisition proceedings having received compensation. It is well settled law that once the compensation has been accepted by the land oustee they are precluded from challenging the land acquisition proceedings. Appellants have acted in their official capacity as judges of the revenue Court while drawing the land acquisition proceedings and cannot be made personally liable for any ignorance or illegality committed by the office clerks in properly maintaining the registers. The learned single judge failed to appreciated the fact that the Petitioner No. 3 was himself working in Kelo Project as SDO and had some ulterior motives in order to fetch huge compensation from the State.
4. In W.A. No. 396/2020, Mr. R.S. Marhas, learned State counsel states that in the entire petition, there is no averment that the writ petitioners do not intend to challenge acquisition or they are aggrieved with the quantum of amount which has been determined in the award. So, there was neither any grievance with the acquisition proceedings nor any grievance with the award amount and the writ petitioners cleverly tried to make out or find out one single fault (as claimed by them) that the award was not passed on 29/05/2010 and there were certain communications from the government offices to the writ petitioners in that regard. The communications which were placed before the learned Single Judge never established conclusively that there was any communication by government office to the writ petitioners that the award was not passed Neutral Citation 2024:CGHC:16652-DB 10 on 29/5/2010. On the basis of certain information received under RTI by the writ petitioners, they had a bonafide doubt that the award might have been passed antedated.
5. Lastly, learned counsel for the appellants jointly submit that all the appellants namely J.R. Chourasia in WA No. 359/2020, S.K. Sharma in WA No. 360/2020 & Rajendra Prasad Jain in WA No. 82/2021 are senior citizens and are aged about 65 years, 70 years and 69 years respectively. Also they have retired from service. Learned Single Judge without hearing them personally, passed the impugned order and, therefore, the impugned findings recorded by the learned Single Judge against the appellants are liable to be set aside.
6. Learned counsel for the respondents strongly oppose the prayer of the appellants and submit that the learned Single Judge has minutely observed the documents filed by the parties and after hearing learned counsel for the parties, passed the impugned order. As per para 19 of the impugned order (Annexure A/1), it was directed to pay sum of Rs.50,000/- to the writ petitioners by the respondent- State but till date, the same has not been paid by the respondent- State to the writ petitioner. Hence, the appeals being without any merit are liable to be dismissed.
7. Heard counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record including the impugned order.
8. On perusal of the impugned order (Annexure A/1), it is evident that the learned Single Judge after properly appreciating all documents filed by both the parties observed in paras 16, 17, 18, 19, 20 & 21 as under:-
"16. In view of aforesaid consideration, this Court reaches to a definite Neutral Citation 2024:CGHC:16652-DB 11 conclusion that it was neither final nor the award was approved by the Commission on 29.5.2010. Apparently, the recital contained in the Award that the Award was approved by the Commissioner is antedated and it could not have been passed on 29.5.2010. This inescapable conclusion must result in holding that Award being antedated was void.
17. It is indeed a case of fraud on power by different officials which is a serious matter. This Court is at pain to observe that in this exercise of antedating, three important office in the hierarchy of administration including the office of the SDO, Gharghoda, office of the Collector, Raigarh and office of Commissioner, Bilaspur were involved. Antedating was done only to save from the consequence as provided under Section 11-A of the Land Acquisition Act under which, if Award is not passed within two years from the date of publication of the declaration, the entire proceedings for acquisition of land shall lapse. This alone may be said to be the oblique purpose of antedating, by coming out with improbable story of so many offices involved, proposal made, approval made by different offices situated at different places, in one day.
18. The question now which arises for consideration is as to what relief can be granted to the petitioners. It is clear that the compensation amount was taken by the petitioners, though, under protest. Since the exercise of statutory power of passing Award is infected with fraud on such power, the proceedings and consequence Award are void ab initio. The petitioners' land could not be taken away except in the manner prescribed by the law in view of Article 300-A of the Constitution of India. The provisions of Land Acquisition Act were given complete go-bye and antedated award was passed. The respondents- authority is, therefore, obliged to initiate the proceeding of land acquisition afresh. Considering that the land of petitioners has already been used in an irrigation project by the State and it is not possible to return the land, all that can be Neutral Citation 2024:CGHC:16652-DB 12 ordered is that upon drawl of appropriate proceedings according to law of the land, as in force today, compensation in accordance with law shall be assessed and payable to each of the petitioners.
Whatever amount as has already been paid to shall be obviously is labile to be adjusted. The proceedings are required to be completed expeditiously and in any case within an outer limit of six months.
19. The petitioners are also entitled to appropriate costs as they have been found to be deprived of their property by a fraudulent act. Each of the petitioners would be entitled to cost of Rs.50,000/- payable by respondent-State.
20. Present is a fit case where this Court should order taking appropriate disciplinary proceedings against the concerned SDO, Collector and Commissioner posted and working in the said office as on 29.5.2010. In case, these officers have retired from service, appropriate proceedings may be drawn in such manner, if at all they are permissible under the law. It would be open for the State to recover cost from the erring officials who were posted in the office of SDO, Collector and Commissioner as on 29.5.2010.
21. Five registers, issued from the office of Commissioner and two from the office of Collector, Raigarh which were produced before the Court in sealed cover be re-sealed and handed over to the learned Additional Advocate General after obtaining receipt for being forwarded to their respective offices."
9. It transpires from the record and from the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties that private respondents received awarded amount and also that all appellants have retired from their service.
10. Looking to the fact that award amount was received by private Neutral Citation 2024:CGHC:16652-DB 13 respondents and proceedings are concluded and it is also clear from record of the writ petition that the appellants were not being heard personally by learned Single Judge, we are of the opinion that the only finding recorded by the learned Single Judge in para 20 against the appellants is not sustainable and the same is hereby set aside. However, the rest of the findings/observation recorded by learned Single Judge in the impugned order shall remain intact. As per para 19 of the impugned order passed by learned Single Judge, State is directed to pay cost of Rs. 50,000/- to private respondents as early as possible.
11. In view of aforesaid observation, the appeals are partly allowed Sd/- Sd/-
(Rajani Dubey) (Ramesh Sinha)
Judge Chief Justice
Ruchi