Suresh Kumar Panjwani vs State Of Chhattisgarh

The present Writ Petition has been filed by the Petitioner seeking for the following relief:-

“10.1 That, the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to set-aside/quash the impugned Notice dated 30.1.2014 (Annexure P-1) issued by the Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue) cum Land Acquisition Officer, Belha, to the Petitioner.

10.2 That, the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the Respondent State to pay back the amount of compensation of Rs.18,20,000/- to the Petitioner.

10.3 That, any other relief(s), which the Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper may kindly be pleased to grant in favour of the Petitioner.”

The dispute involved in the instant case pertains to the property bearing Khasra No.164/1, measuring 1.82 acre, situated at Village Tilsara, Patwari Halka No.5, Tehsil and Block Belha, District Bilaspur. The said land was originally owned by Late Arjun Singh and on his death the property stood vested with his son Dau Singh. It is said that Dau Singh had sold the aforesaid property to the Petitioner by way of a registered sale-deed executed on 14.3.2008.

According to the Petitioner, even when the registered sale-deed was being executed it was the name of Dau Singh S/o Late Arjun Singh that was reflecting in the revenue records and subsequent to the sale-deed being executed the name of the present Petitioner stood mutated in the revenue records. Based upon those entries in the revenue records, when the land acquisition proceedings were drawn and an Award was passed under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (in short, “the Act of 1894”) on 10.5.2013, the said land got notified in the name of the Petitioner and an amount of Rs.18.20 Lakh was quantified as compensation for the said land. The said amount stood deposited with the Land Acquisition Officer and subsequently the entire amount stood released to the Petitioner. The entire acquisition of the land was made for the Ministry of Defence, Government of India.

Subsequently, it has been learnt that the Petitioner has been wrongly paid the aforesaid amount of Rs.18.20 Lakh as compensation. He was called upon to deposit the entire amount, vide Notices dated 30.1.2014 issued by the concerned Patwari and also by the concerned Sub Divisional Officer, respectively. Pursuant to the Notices issued by the Authorities, the Petitioner is said to have immediately refunded the entire amount back to the State Government by way of Cheque No.000381, dated 12.2.2014.

The Notice issued by the Patwari and the Sub Divisional Officer, i.e. Respondents No.3 & 5, asking the Petitioner for refund of the said amount and which has been honoured by the Petitioner is what is under challenge in the present Writ Petition praying for appropriate relief.

Contention of learned Counsel for Petitioner is that at no point of time was the Petitioner's possession of the said property taken over by the State Government. The entire proceeding stood vitiated only on the ground of the Petitioner's possession having not parted with. That since the Petitioner continued to have the possession over the said property, the Notices issued by the Patwari and also by the Sub Divisional Officer seeking for refund of the compensation are also bad and illegal.

Further contention of learned Counsel for Petitioner is that under Section 16 of the Act of 1894 it is mandatorily required that possession of the property be also taken, or else the Respondents do not have the claim over the said property, particularly now after the new Act i.e. the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation & Resettlement Act, 2013 (in short, “the Act of 2013”) having come into force. Learned Counsel for Petitioner refers to Section 16 of the Act of 1894 and also Section 24(2) of the Act of 2013.

For proper understanding of the dispute, both Section 16 of the Act of 1894 and also Section 24(2) of the Act of 2013 are being reproduced herein under:-

Land Acquisition Act, 1894

Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation & Resettlement Act, 2013

Section 16

Section 24

Power to take possession. - When the Collector has made an award under section 11, he may take possession of the land, which shall thereupon [vest absolutely in the [Government]], free from all encumbrances.

Land acquisition process under Act No. 1 of 1894 shall be deemed to have lapsed in certain cases.– (1) xxx xxx xxx (2) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1), in case of land acquisition proceedings initiated under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (1 of 1894), where an award under the said section 11 has been made five years or more prior to the commencement of this Act but the physical possession of the land has not been taken or the compensation has not been paid the said proceedings shall be deemed to have lapsed and the appropriate Government, if it so chooses, shall initiate the proceedings of such land acquisition afresh in accordance with the provisions of this Act:

Provided that where an award has been made and compensation in respect of a majority of land holdings has not been deposited in the account of the beneficiaries, then, all beneficiaries specified in the notification for acquisition under section 4 of the said Land Acquisition Act, shall be entitled to compensation in accordance with the provisions of this Act.

From the pleadings and submissions made on behalf of either side, the admitted factual position that stood was that the afore referred subject land also stood acquired by the State Government for the Irrigation Department (as it then was in the year 1978), vide the Award passed on 1.3.1978. The amount of compensation quantified for the said land was Rs.6279/-. The entire amount of compensation quantified was paid to the original land owner i.e. Late Arjun Singh on 29.3.1978.

Considering the aforesaid admitted factual position, if we look into the provision of Section 16 of the Act of 1894 it goes without saying that the moment the land owner has received the entire amount of compensation quantified for the land belonging to the owner which stood acquired, the property would stand free from all encumbrances. It would have been a different case had the land owner not received the compensation or he would have not accepted the same by raising a dispute under the said provision at that relevant point of time. Having not either challenged the compensation amount by the land owner Late Arjun Singh nor raising a dispute at any point of time against the quantum of compensation and lastly having received the entire amount of compensation, the property thereafter stood vested with the State Government. If that be so, while the subsequent acquisition proceedings were drawn for acquiring the said land and the other land surrounding it for the Ministry of Defence, the Petitioner who is a subsequent purchaser could not have been awarded any compensation whatsoever.

This Court further finds that the Petitioner realizing the aforesaid facts, at the first instance itself honoured the demand raised by the Respondents and deposited the entire compensation amount back to the State Authorities and thereafter has filed the present Writ Petition trying his luck for some favourable orders. This Court in the admitted factual backdrop of the case does not find any strong case made out by the Petitioner to hold the demand raised by the Respondents to be either illegal or in contravention to any of the provisions of Law.

In order to attract the provisions of the Act of 2013, what is primarily required is what is envisaged under Section 24 of the said Act, the provisions of which have already been reproduced in the preceding paragraph for ready reference. One of the conditions stipulated therein is also that if compensation stands paid to the owner, the benefits that are enshrined under Section 24 would automatically lose efficacy. As has been discussed earlier, in the instant case admittedly the original owner Late Arjun Singh had already received the entire amount of compensation as quantified under the Act of 1984. There was no challenge either to the quantum of compensation or in respect of the final Award passed under the Act of 1894.

Given the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the impugned Notice dated 30.1.2014 (Annexure P-1). Writ Petition thus deserves to be and is accordingly dismissed.

The observations made by this Court is qua the Notice under challenge i.e. the Notice for refund of the compensation paid to the Petitioner. The dismissal of the present Writ Petition would not preclude the Petitioner to avail any other remedies available to him under Law.

With aforesaid observations, the Writ Petition stands dismissed.