Chattisgarh High Court
Rajesh Kesharwani vs The State Of Chhattisgarh on 14 July, 2025
1
2025:CGHC:32725
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
WPC No. 1827 of 2022
Rajesh Kesharwani S/o Shyamlal Kesharwani Aged About 48 Years R/o
Surajpur, P.S. Surajpur, Tehsil Surajpur, District Surajpur Chhattisgarh.
... Petitioner(s)
versus
1 - The State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Revenue Department,
Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralay, Atal Nagar, New Raipur Chhattisgarh.
2 - The Collector Surajpur, District Surajpur Chhattisgarh.
3 - The Sub Divisional Officer (R) / Land Acquisition Officer Surajpur
District Surajpur Chhattisgarh.
4 - The Tehsildar Surajpur, District Surajpur Chhattisgarh.
---- Respondents
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
For Petitioner : Mr. Aman Upadhyay, Advocate.
For Respondent-State : Mr. Soumitra Kesharwani, PL
—————————————————————————————–
Hon’ble Shri Arvind Kumar Verma, Judge
Order on Board
14.07.2025
1. This writ petition has been preferred under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India for seeking following reliefs:
“10.1 It is therefore prayed that, this Hon’ble Court may
kindly be pleased to call for the entire records pertaining
to the case of the petitioner from the court below.
2
10.2 That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to
issue a writ in nature of mandamus whereby to set aside
the impugned Order dated 16.12.2021 passed by
Respondent Collector Surajpur District Surajpur in
Revenue Case No. 5/A-82/17-18.
10.3 That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to
issue a writ in nature of mandamus whereby to direct to
the Respondent No. 2 and 3 to determine the amount of
compensation as per the market rate prevailing at the
time of acquisition and further directed to the
Respondent No. 2 and 3 to release the amount of
compensation with interest within a stipulated time.
10.4 Any other relief/reliefs, which this Hon’ble Court
may think fit and proper in the facts and circumstances
of the case, with cost of the petition, may also please be
granted to the petitioner.”
2. Relevant facts for disposal of this writ petition are that the petitioner
owns a land of Khasra No.130/1 admeasuring area 0.036 hectare at
village- Chandarpur, Tehsil – Surajpur District – Surajpur, out of which,
0.02 hectare area of land was acquired by the respondent/State for the
purpose of establishing common railway link for Coal transport under
the scheme of Thermal Power Project, for which, respondent/State has
determined the amount of compensation as Rs.39,536/-, to which,
petitioner made an objection regarding the compensation so determined
was unfair and illegal because said land is adjacent to the main road
and its market value is higher, but objection of the petitioner has been
rejected by respondent No.4/Tehsildar vide its order dated 15.07.2013.
Aggrieved by which, petitioner has preferred the writ petition (WPC No.
1606/2013) before this Court, which was disposed of on 19.07.2018
with a following direction/order “Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed
3
of with reserving the aforesaid liberty in favour of the petitioner to make
an application for reference before the Collector under Section 30 of the
Act of 1894, if he so desired. The said authority would take notice of the
fact that writ petition remained pending from 17.10.2013 till this date.”
Pursuant to order of this Court dated 19.07.2018, the petitioner made
an application under Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for
short, ‘Act of 1894’) before respondent No.2/Collector, which was
registered as Revenue Case No.5/A-82/17-18, however,
respondent/Collector vide impugned order dated 16.12.2021 (Annexure
P-1) has rejected the said application of the petitioner on basis of
following three grounds, “(1). Application filed by the petitioner under
Section 30 of the Act of 1894 is not applicable because there is no
dispute with regard to the apportionment of the compensation; (2). As
per Section 13(A) of the Act of 1894, after expiry of six months, there is
no provision to correct the award by the Collector; (3). The Collector has
observed that as per Section 18(1) of the Act of 1894, there is limitation
prescribed only six months.” Hence, this writ petition.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that pursuant to order of this
Court’s dated 19.07.2018, petitioner made an application under Section
30 of the Act of 1894 before respondent/Collector and Collector ought to
have decided the application on merits, but the Collector considering
the case on technical ground has rejected the application on the ground
that the petitioner did not make any application/objection regarding
determination of the amount of compensation within prescribed limited
period, which is not proper as per relevant rules/law. Hon’ble Apex
Court in a numbers of similar cases has observed that power exercised
4
by the Collector under Sections 18(1) & 30 of the Act of 1894 are
distinct and may be invoke in contingencies which do not overlap and
the Collector should not reject the application under Section 30 on the
ground of limitation. The Collector has committed gross error by not
treating the reference under Section 30 as an original proceeding
before him as well as not determined the compensation of the suit land
as per the market value on the basis of material produced. The
Collector under Section 30 not enjoy to make a reference, he may
relegate the person raising a dispute as a apportionment, as the person
to whom the compensation is payable, to agitate the dispute in a suit
and pay the compensation in the manner declared by the award. The
Collector has not properly gone through the record which was produced
by the sub-ordinate Revenue Officer in respect of land in question that
the land in question of the petitioner is adjusted from the road, thus, the
petitioner should have awarded the compensation as per the market
value. The Collector did not evaluate the evidence in respect of
document of suit land for providing compensation by determining the
market value and rejected the reference on account of technical view on
the ground of time barred. Hence, it is prayed that impugned order
dated 16.12.2021 (Annexure P-1) be set-aside and direction be issued
to concerned authority to determine the amount of compensation as per
the market rate prevailing at the time of acquisition and, thereafter,
release the amount of compensation in favour of the petitioner.
4. Learned State Counsel opposes the submission of counsel for the
petitioner and would submits that respondent-authority after considering
all the aspect of the case has rightly passed the impugned order in
5
which there is no need for interference.
5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned order
including material/evidence available on record.
6. For ready reference, Section 13(A) of the Act of 1894 reads as under:
“13A. Correction of clerical errors, etc.– The Collector
may, at any time but not later than six months from the
date of the award, or where he has been required under
section 18 to make a reference to the Court, before the
making of such reference, by order, correct any clerical
or arithmetical mistake in the award or errors arising
therein either on his own motion or on the application of
any person interested or a local authority.
[Provided that no correction which is likely to affect
prejudicially any person shall be made unless such
person has been given a reasonable opportunity of
making a representation in the matter.]
7. On perusal of above provision of Section 13(A), it is clear that the
provision applies only with regard to the ‘clerical or arithmetical
mistakes’. In case at hand, case of the petitioner is not with regard to
the ‘clerical or arithmetical mistakes’, as the petitioner has filed the
objection/representation before the competent authority with regard to
the calculation or valuation of the land acquired by the
respondent/authority for the purpose of establishing common railway
link for Coal transport under the scheme of Thermal Power Project.
8. In case of ‘clerical or arithmetical error’, it can be only corrected within
six months from the date of the award because there is an exclusion
clause but not later than six months from the date of award.
6
9. Section 29(2) of the Limitation Act, 1963 (Act of 1963) reads as under:
“Section 29. Savings.–
xxxxxxxx
(2). Where any special or local law prescribes for any
suit, appeal or application a period of limitation different
from the period prescribed by the Schedule, the
provisions of section 3 shall apply as if such period were
the period prescribed by the Schedule and for the
purpose of determining any period of limitation
prescribed for any suit, appeal or application by any
special or local law, the provisions contained in sections
4 to 24 (inclusive) shall apply only in so far as, and to
the extent to which, they are not expressly excluded by
such special or local law.”
10. Perusal of above quoted Section reveals that where any special or local
law prescribes for any suit, appeal or application a period of limitation
different from the period prescribed by the Schedule, the provisions of
section 3 shall apply as if such period were the period prescribed by the
Schedule and for the purpose of determining any period of limitation
prescribed for any suit, appeal or application by any special or local law,
the provisions contained in sections 4 to 24 (inclusive) shall apply only in
so far as, and to the extent to which, they are not expressly excluded by
such special or local law.
11.In view of above, Section 29(2) of the Act of 1963 only debars the
petitioner as far as concerned of Section 13(A) of the Act of 1894,
however, there is no debar in Section 18(1) of the Act of 1894. Section
8(1) of the Act of 1894 reads as under:
7
“18. Reference to Court.–
(1). Any person interested who has not accepted the
award may, by written application to the Collector,
require that the matter be referred by the Collector for
the determination of the Court, whether his objection be
to the measurement of the land, the amount of the
compensation, the persons to whom it is payable, or the
apportionment of the compensation among the persons
interested.
(2). The application shall state the grounds on which
objection to the award is taken:
Provided that every such application shall be made,–
(a). if the person making it was present or represented
before the Collector at the time when he made his
award, within six weeks from the date of the Collectors
award;
(b). in other cases, within six weeks of the receipt of the
notice from the Collector under section 12, sub-section
(2), or within six months from the date of the Collectors
award, whichever period shall first expire.
12. It is clear from the above quoted provision of section that if the person
making it was present or represented before the Collector at the time
when he made his award, within six weeks from the date of the Collectors’
award and in other cases, within six weeks of the receipt of the notice
from the Collector under section 12, sub-section (2) or within six months
from the date of the Collectors award, whichever period shall first expire.
13. No doubt, there is a prescribed limitation for reference within 06 months
from the date of passing of the award, but there is no exclusion clause
under Section 29(2) of the Act of 1963, therefore, Section 14 of the Act of
8
1963 would be applicable in this case. Section 14 of the Act of 1963 reads
as under:
“14. Exclusion of time of proceeding bona fide in
court without jurisdiction. —
(1) In computing the period of limitation for any suit the
time during which the plaintiff has been prosecuting with
due diligence another civil proceeding, whether in a
court of first instance or of appeal or revision, against
the defendant shall be excluded, where the proceeding
relates to the same matter in issue and is prosecuted in
good faith in a court which, from defect of jurisdiction or
other cause of a like nature, is unable to entertain it.
(2). In computing the period of limitation for any
application, the time during which the applicant has
been prosecuting with due diligence another civil
proceeding, whether in a court of first instance or of
appeal or revision, against the same party for the same
relief shall be excluded, where such proceeding is
prosecuted in good faith in a court which, from defect of
jurisdiction or other cause of a like nature, is unable to
entertain it.”
14. Vide order dated, 19.07.2018 in WPC No. 1606/2013, this Court has
given liberty to the petitioner to make an application for reference before
the Collector under Section 30 of the Act of 1894 and in-turn said
authority would take notice of the fact that writ petition remained pending
9
from 17.10.2013 till this date, however, matter is not related to Section
30 of the Act of 1894, but it relates to Section 18 of the Act of 1894, since
there is no exclusion clause, therefore, Section 14 of the Act of 1963
would be applicable in this case. Hence, in such situation/circumstances,
impugned order is not sustainable and is liable to be quashed/set-aside.
15. Accordingly, writ petition is allowed. Impugned order dated 16.12.2021
(Annexure P-1) is hereby set-aside. Matter is remanded back to the
concerned Collector for fresh adjudication of the case as per Section
18(1) of the Act of 1894 and in the light of Section 14 of the Act of 1963.
However, it is made clear that the Collector shall decide the case afresh
on its own merits without being influenced by this order.
CC as per rules.
Sd/- Sd/-
(Arvind Kumar Verma)
Judge
J/-
[ad_1]
Source link