When the award has not been challenged at any point of time, determination of compensation afresh, in the considered opinion of this Court, does not arise: High Court of Chhattisgarh
In the exercise of the right over any land, the rights of any person are infringed by the occupation or disturbance of the surface of such land, the Government or its assignee shall pay to such person compensation for such infringement as upheld by the High Court of Chhattisgarh through the learned bench led by Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal in the case of Nokhram, Ramayan Sahu and Ors. v. State of Chhattisgarh and Ors. (Writ Appeal No.72 of 2021) The brief facts of the case are that 19 persons including the present petitioners had filed a writ petition being with the grievance that their lands had been acquired by the respondent No.2 for the purpose of leasing out to the respondent No.4 without any payment of compensation and without any rehabilitation programme. By an order dated 20.02.2003, this Court disposed of the aforesaid writ petition providing that the petitioners may file a representation to the Collector along with the copy of the writ petition and copy of the order passed and in the event of filing of any such representation, the Collector would pass appropriate orders after hearing the petitioners. It was also provided that if aggrieved by any of the orders passed, the petitioners would be entitled to pursue remedies as may be available in law. The writ petitioners had also filed a writ petition, praying from restraining the respondents from interfering with the lands of the petitioners. On representation being made by the petitioners, the same came to be disposed of on 19.09.2003 as infructuous. Subsequent thereto, this writ petition, out of which the instant appeal arises, came to be filed with prayers to issue a writ of mandamus directing the respondent No.4 to provide employment to the petitioners and also to pay compensation to them at the current rate of land of the area. After considering the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and perusal of the materials on record, the Hon’ble Court held, “The award dated 20.06.2000 recites that the opposite parties therein are Tiharu and 46 others. The present writ petition was filed by only 7 writ petitioners, out of whom, one has chosen not to prefer any appeal. In the aforesaid backdrop of factual events, when the award has not been challenged at any point of time, determination of compensation afresh, in the considered opinion of this Court, does not arise. 21. In view of the above discussion, we are of the considered opinion that no interference is called for with regard to the order passed by the learned Single Judge. However, before parting of the records, we observe that if the 9 amounts deposited are fetching any interest, compensation amount shall be paid along with such accrued interest. With the aforesaid modification of the order of the learned Single Judge, writ appeal stands dismissed.”
1 AFRHIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH BILASPUR Writ Appeal No.7211.NokhramThrough Legal Heirs 1.1 Through Legal Hrs. 3.1 Through Legal Heirs 4.1 Through Legal Heirs 6.1 No.31507 partlyallowing the writ petition as indicated in paragraphs 10 and 11 of the impugnedorder.4.The order impugned in the instant appeal is an order in the secondround of litigation.5.19 persons including the present petitioners had filed a writ petitionbeing Writ Petition No.4703 with the grievance that their lands had beenacquired by the respondent No.2 for the purpose of leasing out to therespondent No.4 without any payment of compensation and without anyrehabilitation programme.6.By an order dated 20.02.2003 this Court disposed of the aforesaidwrit petition providing that the petitioners may file a representation to theCollector along with the copy of the writ petition and copy of the order passedand in the event of filing of any such representation the Collector would passappropriate orders after hearing the petitioners. It was also provided that ifaggrieved by any of the orders passed the petitioners would be entitled topursue remedies as may be available in law. 7.The writ petitioners had also filed a writ petition registered as WritPetition No.37003 praying from restraining the respondents frominterfering with the lands of the petitioners. On representation being made bythe petitioners the same came to be disposed of on 19.09.2003 as infructuous. 48.Subsequent thereto this writ petition out of which the instantappeal arises came to be filed with prayers to issue a writ of mandamusdirecting the respondent No.4 to provide employment to the petitioners and alsoto pay compensation to them at the current rate of land of the area.9.During the course of the proceedings the petitioners No. 1 3 4and 6 had expired and they are substituted by their legal representatives.Petitioner No.1 was a resident of village Kutighat and petitioners No.2 to 7 ofvillage Aarasmeta and the extent of lands owned by them are mentioned inparagraph 5.6 of the writ petition.10.Respondent No.4 to which reference is already made is acompany registered under the Companies Act 1956 and is engaged in themanufacturing of Cement and the said company was earlier known asRaymond Cement Works Company.11.The learned Single Judge in paragraphs 7 to 11 had observed asfollows :“7. The aforesaid affidavit filed by the State hasnot been disputed by the petitioners for longperiod of 7 years till date though the petitionerschose to move application seeking substitution oflegal representatives of some of the petitioners who died during the pendency of the writ petition.Therefore the factual position as stated in theaffidavit of the State has to be accepted.8. That would mean that as far as petitionersexcept petitioners No.1 & 6 are concerned theirgrievance with regard to employment has alreadybeen redressed. 59. Specific averments that though appointmentletter was issued in favour of Manoj Kumar S oNokhram Petitioner No.1 he did not join has notbeen disputed before this Court. Appointmentletterbears acknowledgement. Allthese facts have not been disputed by filing anyreply or affidavit by the petitioners particularly legal representative of petitioner No.1 Nokhramnot even Manoj Kumar. Therefore this factualdispute cannot be further gone into writ petition. Itwill be open for Manoj Kumar to take separateremedy if he has a case based on any enableclaim.10. As far as offer of employment to brother ofpetitioner No.6 is concerned even according tothe respondent appointment letter could not beserved because he was out of station. The legalrepresentative of petitioner No.6 would be atliberty to approach the competent authorityraising claim of appointment and in that event the competent authority i.e. Collector of theJurisdiction of the District shall cause an enquiryto be made in this regard and if it is found thatappointment letter was not served on Pusauram brother of petitioner No.6 necessary stepstowards offer of employment to the personnominated by respondent No.4 shall be taken. 611. As far as claim of compensation isconcerned averments made in paragraph 5 particularly with reference to list Annexure A 5 itis clearly revealed that none of the petitionersaccepted the compensation and theircompensation was thereafter deposited withTahsildar Akaltara District Janjgir Champa. If thecompensation so far has not been lifted by allother petitioners or legal representative ofdeceased petitioners it will be open for them toapproach the Sub Divisional Officer Janjgir Champa and Tahsildar Akaltara District Janjgir Champa for release of compensation amountlying in their account forthwith.”12.Mr. H. B. Agrawal learned senior counsel for the appellants hassubmitted that the compensation computed is not in accordance with law andtherefore the writ petitioners did not accept the compensation amount which islying with the Government and the learned Single Judge having not adverted tothe prayer made for payment of compensation on the basis of prevailing marketrate the impugned order is not sustainable in law.13.So far as employment to be offered to the petitioners is concerned the learned senior counsel submits that there is no surviving cause of actionwith regard to the same as employment has since been offered and therefore this Court may confine its consideration only with regard to prayer for paymentof compensation at the prevailing market rate. It is in this context he hassubmitted that since the compensation has not been accepted by majority of theland owners the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land 7Acquisition Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act 2013 will come into play andcompensation is to be determined on the basis thereof.14.Refuting the submissions made by learned senior counsel Mr.Vikram Sharma learned Deputy Advocate General appearing for theState respondents No.1 to 3 submits that Writ Petition No.4703 was filedwithout disclosing the fact that the award had come to be passed beforeinstitution of the writ petition and it is only on the basis of the submissionsadvanced by the learned counsel for the petitioners in the aforesaid writ petitionthat this Court had directed the Collector to examine the issue and to passappropriate orders after hearing the petitioners. He has pointed out that theCollector in his elaborate order dated 19.09.2003 had indicated that as anaward was passed he is not competent to record any opinion on the issueraised by the petitioners. It is also pointed out by him that order of the Collectoris not under assailment in the writ petition and so also the original award passedby the Sub Divisional Officer Janjgir under Section 247 of the ChhattisgarhLand Revenue Code 1959on 20.06.2000. Accordingly he submits that in the attending facts and circumstances of the case the orderof the learned Single Judge does not warrant any interference and the writappeal is liable to be dismissed.15.We have considered the submissions of learned counsel for theparties and have perused the materials on record.16.That the lands of the petitioners had been acquired under theprovisions of the Code 1959 is not in dispute. What is also not in dispute is thatan award was passed on 20.06.2000 by the Sub Divisional Officer Janjgir. Thecopy of the award was annexed as part of the affidavit filed by the respondentsNo.1 to 3 in the writ petition on 07.08.2013. The amount of compensation 8payable in respect of the petitioners is also indicated in the Annexure of theaward. Though copy of the affidavit was served upon the learned counsel forthe writ petitioner no response was filed with regard to the aforesaid affidavit.17.Section 247(1) of the Code 1959 provides that unless it isotherwise expressly provided by the terms of a grant made by the Government the right to all minerals mines and quarters shall vest in the State Governmentwhich shall have all powers necessary for the proper enjoyment of such rights.Section 247(4) of the Code 1959 provides that if in the exercise of the rightover any land the rights of any person are infringed by the occupation ordisturbance of the surface of such land the Government or its assignee shallpay to such persons compensation for such infringement and the amount ofsuch compensation shall be calculated by the Sub Divisional Officer or if hisaward is not accepted by the Civil Court as nearly as may be in accordancewith the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act 1894.18.Though Mr. Agrawal has submitted that the petitioners had notaccepted the award none had taken recourse to pursue their remedies beforethe Civil Court.19.The award dated 20.06.2000 recites that the opposite partiestherein are Tiharu and 46 others. The present writ petition was filed by only 7writ petitioners out of whom one has chosen not to prefer any appeal.20.In the aforesaid backdrop of factual events when the award hasnot been challenged at any point of time determination of compensation afresh in the considered opinion of this Court does not arise.21.In view of the above discussion we are of the considered opinionthat no interference is called for with regard to the order passed by the learnedSingle Judge. However before parting of the records we observe that if the 9amount deposited is fetching any interest compensation amount shall be paidalongwith such accrued interest.22.With the aforesaid modification of the order of the learned SingleJudge writ appeal stands dismissed. No costs. Sd Sd (Sanjay K. Agrawal) Chief Justice Judge Anu 