Chandan Das Manikpuri vs State Of Chhattisgarh

This is the second round of litigation. The earlier round of litigation was WPC 2159/2020.

The petitioners are claiming compensation on account of they being dispossessed of the land where they were residing for many decades. The dispute arises out of the land that situates at Khasra No.496 at Village Kanjipani at PH No.23 Chaitma, Tahsil Pali, District Korba.

The property actually belongs to Satnarayan Singh respondent no.4 being the actual owner of the said land. However, the petitioners were permitted to reside in the said property by constructing of their house and they were taking care of the property of the respondent no.4 and were also carrying out certain agricultural activities on the said land. The petitioners have been occupying the said land for about four decades.

Meanwhile, for the purpose of construction of national Highway connecting Bilaspur- Ambikapur the aforesaid land was required and was accordingly acquired under the Land Acquisition law governing the field. The compensation was quantified in favour of the respondent no.4 and the amount of compensation stands deposited with the respondent no.3.

The claim of the petitioner is that since they were occupying the said land for about four decades and they fall within the definition of the “affected family” as defined under Section 3c (ii) and in the process the petitioners also become a “person interested” as defined under Section 3(x) of The Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013.

According to the petitioners in addition to the agricultural act that petitioners were engaged on the said land they had also spent some money for construction of their house and development of the area like digging well etc. Therefore while the compensation was being quantified the petitioners also had to be suitably compensated at least for the super structure that was erected by the petitioners over the said land. When the petitioners approached this Court in the earlier round of litigation, this Court had directed the petitioners to approach the respondent no.2 & 3 for ventilating their grievances so far as apportionment of compensation is concerned. The respondent no.3 has now rejected the claim of the petitioner vide order Annexure P-1 dated 04.12.2021. The rejection has been on the ground that for the purpose of claiming the relief that petitioner has sought for they will have to get an order in respect of their title before the concerned Civil Court. It is this order that has been challenged by the petitioner in the present writ petition.

Contention of the petitioners is that undoubtedly the petitioners had made certain investment in the said land and were staying there in the house that was constructed by them. That they had also made certain further development on the said land like Plantation of trees, digging of wells etc. All these must have been taken note of by the respondent authorities in the course of quantifying the compensation and if that be so the amount which has been spent by the petitioners should had been ordered to be paid to the petitioners and remaining amount could had been given to the actual land owner.

It would be relevant at this juncture to take note of that Section 64 of the aforesaid Act of 2013 in the event of any person interested aggrieved of the award, he can approach the concerned District Collector for determination of the claim as raised by the persons. For ready reference the Section 64 of the Act of 2013 is reproduced hereinunder :-

“64. Reference to Authority (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 Authority, as the case may be, whether his objection be to the measurement of the land, the amount of the compensation, the person to whom it is payable, the rights of Rehabilitation and Resettlement under Chapters V and VI or the apportionment of the compensation among the persons interested: Provided that the Collector shall, within a period of thirty days from the date of receipt of application, make a reference to the appropriate Authority: Provided further that where the Collector fails to make such reference within the period so specified, the applicant may apply to the Authority, as the case may be, requesting it to direct the Collector to make the reference to it within a period of thirty days.

(2) The application shall state the grounds on which objection to the award is taken: Provided that every such application shall be made

— (a) 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 21, or within six months from the date of the Collectors award, whichever period shall first expire: Provided further that the Collector may entertain an application after the expiry of the said period, within a further period of one year, if he is satisfied that there was sufficient cause for not filing it within the period specified in the first proviso.”

Given the said facts that Act itself provides for a mechanism in the event of any person interest being aggrieved of the award. That if at all if the petitioners became entitled then for quantifying the compensation again needs factual assessment of the ground realities which would not be permissible in the course of exercising the Writ Jurisdiction. This Court is therefore of the opinion that it would be more appropriate if the petitioners are permitted to approach the District Collector by moving an appropriate application under Section 64 in respect of their grievance. In the process the petitioners would also be at liberty to approach the Collector for any interim direction so far as the disbursement of the entire compensation lying with the respondent no.3 at least to the extent of value of super structure and the constructions made by the petitioners. If at all if the petitioners approach the collector under Section 64 by way of an appropriate application moved in this regard, the District Collector is expected to take a decision purely in accordance with law considering the factual matrix of the case within the time stipulated under the Act itself.

In case if the petitioners move appropriate application the Collector is directed to take a decision on the said application within the time given under the Act and petitioner would also be at liberty to approach the concerned Authority (to whom the reference shall be made by the Collector) claiming for the interim relief.

With the aforesaid liberty, the writ petition accordingly stands disposed of.