Chattisgarh High Court
Ramadhar Suryavanshi vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 16 January, 2025
Author: Parth Prateem Sahu
Bench: Parth Prateem Sahu
1/5
2025:CGHC:3165
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
FAM No. 263 of 2019
• Ramadhar Suryavanshi S/o Late Dhajaram Sruyavanshi Aged About 65
Years R/o Village Bitkula, Tehsil- Masturi, District- Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh.
... Appellant/
Plaintiff
versus
1. State of Chhattisgarh through Collector Bilaspur, District- Bilaspur,
Chhattisgarh., District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgar
2. Sub Divisional Officer Revenue, Masturi, Disrtict- Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh.,
District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh
3. Executive Engineer Department of Irrigation, Kharang, Bilaspur,
Chhattisgarh., District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh
4. Sub Divisional Officer Cum Land Acquisition Officer Masturi, Tehsil- Masturi,
District- Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh.
... Respondents
For Appellant : Mr. Nasimuddin Ansari, Advocate
For Respondent-State : Mr. Prafull N. Bharat, Advocate General along
with Mr. Amandeep Singh, Panel Lawyer
Hon'ble Shri Parth Prateem Sahu, Judge
PAWAN
ORDER ON BOARD KUMAR
JHA
16/01/2025 Digitally
signed by
PAWAN
KUMAR JHA
1. This appeal is filed under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894
(hereinafter referred to as “Act of 1894”) against the order passed by First
Additional District Judge, Bilaspur in M.J.C. No. 158/2017 on a reference
being made by the Collector under Section 18 of the Act of 1894.
2. Facts necessary for disposal of this appeal are that the land bearing khasra
No. 408/01, 408/2 measuring 0.16 acre, owned by father of appellant, was
subject matter of acquisition by the respondents under the Act of 1894. A
2/5
notice under Section 4 of the Act of 1894 was published and after following
due procedure of law, the land acquisition officer passed an award awarding
total sum of Rs. 48,458/-. Aggrieved with the quantum of compensation
determined by the land acquisition officer, appellant submitted an application
on 18.02.2014 before Respondent No. 1/ Collector with a prayer that he be
awarded total sum of Rs. 6,40,000/- as compensation of the land.
Respondent No. 1/ Collector considering the grounds raised in the application
has referred the matter to the District Judge, Bilaspur for determining the
amount of compensation, accordingly the impugned award was passed by
First Additional District Judge, Bilaspur, enhancing the amount of
compensation from Rs. 48,458/- to Rs. 62,760/- and further awarded interest
under the provisions of Section 28 of the Act of 1894 on the enhanced amount
of compensation.
3. Mr. Nasimuddin Ansari, learned counsel for appellant submits that the land
which was subject matter of acquisition was situated within 13 meters from the
house of Mansaram Banjare. Earlier on the land, house was situated and
therefore the nature of land of appellant which was subject matter of
acquisition was a residential land. The amount of compensation ought to have
been calculated considering the nature of land of appellant to be a residential
land, however, the land of appellant was assessed to be a unirrigated
agricultural land. Accordingly the amount of compensation calculated is on
lower side.
4. Mr. P.N. Bharat, learned Advocate General opposes the submission of learned
counsel for appellant and would submit that learned Additional District Judge
has passed the impugned award upon appreciation of the pleadings and
evidence available on record. The award passed is just and proper and is in
accordance with law, hence, it does not call for any interference. He
contended that no evidence is brought before the District Judge that the land
which is owned and subject matter of acquisition is a diverted land to be used
for residential purpose.
3/5
5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and also perused the record of
reference case.
6. Perusal of application Ext. P-3 filed before the Collector on 06.01.2014 would
show that in paragraph 3 appellant has pleaded that his land is situated within
13 meters from the house of Mansaram Banjare and is adjacent to road. It is
further mentioned that after purchase of the land his father has converted it to
the agricultural field and was earning his livelihood by sowing paddy, gram
and pea crops.
7. Appellant in support of his claim has examined himself as AW-1. In
examination in-chief, in paragraph 5, he also stated that his land is situated
within 13 meters from the house of Mansaram Satnami and is suitable for
residential purpose. In the said paragraph it is also mentioned that prior to 50
years there were 2-3 houses situated over the said land and Patwari has
given the certificate in this regard. In paragraph 17, it is stated that out of total
land of khasra No. 408/1 and 408/2, 0.16 dismil of land was acquired and rest
of the land is still remaining.
8. Mr. Anandram is examined as AW-2. In cross-examination, he stated that
earlier one house was situated over the land owned by appellant.
9. From the aforementioned evidence brought on record by the appellant before
the Additional District Judge, it is prima facie appearing that on the date of
acquisition of land no residential accommodation/ house was situated over
the land and further from the application submitted before the Collector
seeking reference, purported to be under Section 18, for enhancement of the
amount of compensation, there is specific pleading of appellant that his father
was doing agricultural activities by sowing paddy, gram and pea crops for the
purpose of earning his livelihood. The nature of land owned by appellant and
subject matter of the acquisition as per his own pleading was an agricultural
land and therefore the submission of learned counsel for appellant that the
land is a residential land is not sustainable and to that extent I do not find any
error in the impugned award passed by Additional District Judge. Learned
4/5
Additional District Judge considering the prevailing market value of the land as
per the guidelines issued by the Registrar of the concerned district has
enhanced the amount of compensation which in view of the status of the land,
as considered by the Additional District Judge is not challenged to be
erroneous, hence, it does not call for any interference.
10. Learned Additional District Judge in paragraph 12 of the impugned award has
awarded interest in terms of Section 28 of the Act of 1894 @ 9% p.a. from the
date of acquisition and further held that if the amount is not deposited within
01 year from the date of award, the excess amount of compensation awarded
shall carry interest @ 15% p.a. Learned Additional District Judge while
awarding the interest on the enhanced amount of compensation has only
taken note of the provision under Section 28 and escaped consideration of the
provision under Section 23 (1-A) of the Act of 1894 which provides for the
interest @ 12% p.a. on amount of compensation from the date of publication
of notification under Section 4 sub-section 1 in respect of such land to the
date of the award of the Collector or the date of taking possession of the land,
whichever is earlier. Though the specific pleading in this regard is not made in
the application under Section 18 of the Act of 1894 filed before the Collector
which was referred for consideration before the Additional District Judge under
Section 18, however, the award of interest under Section 23(1-A) of the Act of
1894 is statutory and consequential and therefore in the opinion of this Court,
appellant is entitled for the interest as provided under Section 23 (1-A) of the
Act of 1894 on the enhanced amount of compensation as awarded by the
Additional District Judge.
11. For the foregoing discussion, the claim of appellant that the land as owned
and acquired by the respondents is a residential land is rejected. The amount
of compensation as calculated by the Additional District Judge in M.J.C. No.
158/17 is affirmed. However, the award of interest is modified to the extent
that the appellant shall be entitled for the interest @ 12% p.a. from the date of
publication of notification under Section 4(1) of the Act of 1894 till the date of
5/5
passing of the award of the enhanced amount of compensation by the
Additional District Judge in M.J.C. No. 158/17. Thereafter, the enhanced
amount of compensation shall carry interest in terms of Section 28 of the Act
of 1894 @ 9% p.a. for a period of 01 year from the date of passing of award
by the Additional District Judge and after one year the said enhanced amount
shall carry interest @ 15% p.a.
12. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed in part.
Sd/-
(Parth Prateem Sahu)
pwn JUDGE
[ad_1]
Source link