Chandrakumar Sahu vs State Of Chhattisgarh

With the consent of Learned Counsel appearing for the parties, the appeal is heard finally.

This appeal has been preferred under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (henceforth ‘the Act’) being aggrieved by the judgment dated 30.7.2021 passed by 1st Additional District Judge, Sakti, District Janjgir-Champa in Miscellaneous Civil Suit No.79 of 2005.

Facts of the case, in short, are that for construction of a sub-canal at Amandula, a proceeding was initiated by the Land Acquisition Officer, Sakti under the Act. A case was registered as Land Acquisition Case No.102/A-82/2002-03 and an award was passed on 26.8.2003, which was duly approved by the Collector on 3.9.2003. In the said proceeding, Budhram’s land was also acquired and he was awarded compensation to the tune of Rs.34,552 treating his land as non-irrigated land instead of irrigated one. In this regard, Budhram moved his objection vide Ex.P4 and P5 dated 31.10.2003 and 31.12.2003, respectively. Despite the said objection, it was not referred by the Land Acquisition Officer to the Court having jurisdiction for its determination. Thereafter, Budhram further made an application on 8.2.2005. Thereafter, it was referred by the Collector to the Reference Court, i.e., the Court of Additional District Judge. The Reference Court, vide judgment dated 22.9.2005, rejected the reference petition preferred under Section 18(2) of the Act holding the reference petition to be barred by time. Against the said judgment of the Reference Court, an appeal was preferred before this Court by Budhram which was registered as F.A. No.76 of 2006. Vide judgment dated 23.6.2020, this Court set aside the judgment dated 22.9.2005 passed by the Additional District Judge/Reference Court in Miscellaneous Civil Suit No.79 of 2005 and remitted the matter back to the Reference Court with a direction to decide the objection raised by Applicant Budhram on 31.10.2003 (Ex.P4) only with regard to the following points:

“a) Whether the Applicant’s land bearing Kh.Nos.590/1, 613/2, 589/1 and 1711/7 admeasuring respectively as 0.10 acres, 0.19 acres, 0.48 acres and 0.10 acres has been acquired under the said land acquisition proceedings?

b) If yes, what would be its actual market value payable to the Applicant?”

Thereafter, vide judgment dated 30.7.2021, the Reference Court/Additional District Judge, Sakti allowed the reference petition submitted under Section 18(2) of the Act holding that the land which was acquired was an irrigated land and direction was given to pay compensation of Rs.4,77,000 along with 30% solatium amount and interest @ 12% per annum instead of compensation of Rs.34,552. Being aggrieved by the judgment dated 30.7.2021, the instant appeal has been preferred by the legal heirs of Applicant Budhram.

Learned Counsel appearing for the Appellants/legal heirs of deceased Applicant Budhram submits that the judgment dated 30.7.2021 under appeal as passed by the Reference Court is not in accordance with the direction issued by this Court in judgment dated 23.6.2020 passed in F.A. No.76 of 2006. It is submitted that while remanding the case to the Reference Court, above-quoted two (a) and (b) points were made by this Court, but the Reference Court did not consider and discuss the observations and did not arrive at any finding in that regard.

Learned Counsel appearing for the Respondents/State opposes the arguments raised on behalf of the Appellants.

I have heard Learned Counsel appearing for the parties and perused the record including the impugned judgment dated 30.7.2021.

From perusal of the record as well as the impugned judgment dated 30.7.2021 passed by the Reference Court, it appears that in spite of the directions given by this Court, the Reference Court has not assessed any compensation in respect of the land bearing Khasra Nos.590/1, 613/2, 589/1 and 1711/7 admeasuring respectively as 0.10 acres, 0.19 acres, 0.48 acres and 0.10 acres and thereby the Reference Court has not followed the directions given by this Court in its judgment dated 23.6.2020.

Consequently, the impugned judgment of the Reference Court dated 30.7.2021 passed in Miscellaneous Civil Suit No.79 of 2005 is hereby set aside and the matter is again remitted back to the Reference Court for compliance of the directions given by this Court in its judgment dated 23.6.2020 passed in F.A. No.76 of 2006.

The Reference Court is further directed to decide the aforesaid two issues [(a) and (b)] framed by this Court in accordance with law by providing sufficient and reasonable opportunity of hearing to the parties. The parties are directed to remain present before the concerned Court on 30.6.2022. Registry is directed to transfer the entire relevant record to the concerned Court forthwith. No order as to costs.

Accordingly, the instant appeal is disposed of with the aforesaid directions.