1 2025:CGHC:7529 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 678 of 2018 Smt. Sangeeta Jain W/o Late Shri Sunil Jain Aged About 48 Years R/o Opposite Kakkad Auto , G E Road, Rajnandgaon District Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh. Civil And Revenue District Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioner versus 1 - State of Chhattisgarh through the Secretary , Department of Urban Administration Mantralaya Mahanadi Bhawan Capital Complex , Naya Raipur Chhattisgarh. 2 - The Secretary , Government of Chhattisgarh Department of Town And Country Planning D K S Bhawan Raipur Chhattisgarh. 3 - The Commissioner, Municipal Corporation, Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh. 4 - The Collector , Rajnandgaon Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh. ... Respondents (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner : Mr. Siddharth Shukla, Advocate For State/Respondents 1, 2 and 4 : Mr. Ajit Singh, Govt. Advocate For Respondents No. 3 : Mr. Sourabh Sharma, Advocate Hon’ble Shri Amitendra Kishore Prasad, Judge Order on Board 12/02/2025 1. Heard Mr. Siddharth Shukla, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Mr. Ajit Singh, Govt. Advocate for State/respondents No.1, 2 and YOGESH TIWARI Digitally signed by YOGESH TIWARI Date: 2025.02.28 10:36:38 +0530 2 4 and Mr. Sourabh Sharma, Advocate for respondent No. 3. 2. By way of this writ petition, the petitioner is seeking indulgence of this Court to take appropriate action to comply with the order dated 23.04.2013 passed in Writ Petition (C) No.7375 of 2009, in which this Court has directed the respondent-authorities to initiate proceeding for acquisition of the land of the petitioner which has been illegally taken over by the respondent No.3-Municipal Corporation, however, compensation has not been paid to the petitioner in accordance with law. In the said order itself, the respondent No.3-Municipal Corporation was directed to pay compensation to the petitioner, however, till date, compensation has not been paid to the petitioner. 3. The petitioner has filed the instant writ petition with the following reliefs:- “A. A writ and/or an order in the nature of writ of appropriate nature do issue to initiate land acquisition proceeding on the illegally occupied land of the petitioner within time frame fixed by this Hon'ble Court as per The Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013. B. A writ and/or direction to the respondent authorities to comply with the order dated 23/04/2013 passed in Writ Petition (Civil) No. 7375/2013 with in time frame as fixed by this Court. C. Any other relief which this Hon'ble Court 3 may deem fit in the facts & circumstances of case. D. Cost of the petition may also be awarded.” 4. Brief facts for disposal of this writ petition are that the petitioner is the owner of land of Khasra No. 101/12, admeasuring 0.4 acre, situated at village Kaurinbhata, Patwari Circle No. 38, Block and District Rajnandgaon (C.G.). The respondent authorities to provide public convenience in the year 2007, has constructed road on the above- mentioned land and since then, it is being used by the public at large. To the utter surprise of the petitioner, even after occupying the land of the petitioner illegally, no compensation or award was given to the petitioner for the subject land of acquisition in accordance of law. 5. Being aggrieved with the inaction of the respondent authorities, he was compelled to approach this Court seeking protection of the rights and he preferred a writ petition before this Court bearing Writ Petition (C) No.7375 of 2009. After consideration of the case on merits, this Court vide order dated 23.04.2013 came to conclusion that land has been occupied illegally by the respondent authorities and directed the respondent No. 3 to compute the market value of the land as on date and pay the price of the same. 6. The petitioner was having legitimate expectation that the order of this Court will be complied with by the respondent authorities, he made representation to the concerned Department and provided the copy of the order of this Court. Even after making several requests to the 4 respondent No.3 for payment of compensation, the respondent authorities have delayed the payment of the compensation on one ground or another and failed to comply with the order passed by this Court. 7. Feeling aggrieved with delay in payment of compensation, the petitioner has preferred a review petition bearing REVP No.1 of 2015, which was dismissed by this Court on 19.03.2015 by Division Bench of this Court and the order dated 23.04.2013 passed in Writ Petition (C) 7375 of 2009 become binding and final. 8. In spite of the order of this Court, no steps till date has been taken by the respondent authorities to initiate land acquisition proceeding as directed by this Court and the order is kept at abeyance for compliance without any justification or reasons for more than 5 years. The petitioner being aggrieved by inaction of the respondent authorities has time and again has informed the respondent authorities to comply with the order of this Court, but till date the same has fetched futile results. After the lapse of more than a decade, the petitioner has not been paid a single penny for the land illegally occupied by the respondent authorities, hence instant petition has been filed. 9. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the act of the respondent authorities is arbitrary, illegal and bad in the eye of law as the respondent authorities had failed to take even a single step to comply with the order passed by this Court. He further submits that the respondent authorities tantamount to violation of the fundamental rights 5 and constitutional rights of the petitioner as they cannot occupy the land of the petitioner illegally without initiating land acquisition proceeding in accordance with law. It has been contended that the respondent authorities have failed to initiate land acquisition proceeding in accordance of law and pay the price of the land as on the present date to the petitioner even after lapse of 4 years. It has been further contended that the land of the petitioner cannot be occupied/acquired without initiation of land acquisition proceeding under The Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (for short, “Act of 2013”). It has been argued that the respondent authorities cannot deprive the petitioner of his property rights without following due process of law. As such, the writ petition be allowed and the respondent authorities are directed to pay the compensation to the petitioner, in accordance with law. 10. On the other hand, learned State counsel, appearing for the respondents No.1, 2 and 4 vehemently opposes the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner and submits that the land in dispute is shown to be public road by the Nagar Tatha Gram Nivesh Rajnandgaon in master plan and taking advantage of road showing in master plan, the petitioner along with others, already sold the land in both sides of proposed road. Since the proposed road is under the master plan of Town and Country Planning, on 17.12.2014, the Municipal Corporation has requested the Town and Country Planning for doing the needful in compliance of order dated 23.04.2013. Thereafter, on 05.12.2015 and 12.02.2019, for the same cause of 6 action, the writ petition has already been disposed of, therefore, subsequent writ petition on the same ground is not maintainable. 11. Learned counsel appearing for respondent No.3 submits that the petitioner has filed the instant writ petition for direction to initiate land acquisition proceeding on the illegal occupied land without time frame under the Act of 2013 and to comply with the order dated 23.04.2013, passed in Writ Petition (C) No. 7375 of 2009. He further submits that since the subject land is shown to be road in the master plan and no construction has been made by them in the land of the petitioner as also made a communication to the Director, Town and Country Planning and to the Urban Administration to do the needful action for acquiring the petitioner's land and determining the compensation, the petitioner is not entitled for any relief as sought for against respondent No.3. It has been contended that since the subject matter of the writ petition has already been adjudicated, instant petition on the same cause of action, is not maintainable. 12. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents annexed thereto with utmost circumspection. 13. After considering the entire aspect of the matter, this Court is of the opinion that the respondent No.3-Municipal Corporation has committed illegality and acted malafide in discharging of this colorable exercise of power, as such, the said act on the part of the Municipal Corporation, cannot be accepted. If they had taken the land of the petitioner, they have to follow the procedures and have to pay the 7 compensation upon acquisition of the land of the petitioner in accordance with law. In such circumstance, they cannot escape from their liability to pay compensation. 14. The Ho’nble Supreme Court time and again has dealt with the same issue. In the matter of Lalaram and others v. Jaipur Devempment Authority and another reported in (2016) 11 SCC 31, Hon’ble Supreme Court has held as follows :- “126. The right of the owner of a land to receive just compensation, in the context of his claim to access to justice as declared by the international covenant on Economic, social and cultural rights, had been underlined by this Court in SAIL v. Sutni Sangam, (2009) 16 SCC 1.. 127. While recognizing the power of the state to acquire the land of its citizens, it has been proclaimed in Dev Sharan v. State of U.P. (2011) 4 SCC 769 that even thought the right to property is no longer a fundamental right and was never a natural right, it has to be accepted that without the right to property, other rights become illusory. 128. In a catena of decisions of this court, this prize privlige has also been equated to human right. In State of Haryana v. Mukesh Kumar, (2011) 10 SCC 404 , this Court has succinctly propounded this proposition in the following terms: (SCC P. 415, Paras 33-34). "33. The right to property is now 8 considered to be not only an constitutional or statue right but also a human right. Human Rights have already been considered in the realm of individual rights such as the right to health, right to livelihood, right to shelter and employment, etc. but now human rights are gaining a multifaceted dimension. Right to Property is also considered very much a part of the new dimension. Therefore, even the claim of adverse possession has to be read in that context. 34. The changing attitude of the English courts is quite visible from the judgment of Beaulane Properties Ltd. v. Palmer 2005 EWHC 817. The Court here tried to read the human rights position in the context of adverse possession. But what is commendable is that the dimensions of Human Rights have widened so much that now property dispute issues are also being raised within the contours of human rights. With the Expanding Jurisprudence of the European Courts of Human Rights, the Court has taken an unkind view to the concept of adverse possession. (Emphasis suppied) 129. In summa, the right to property having been elevated to the status of human rights, it is inherent in every individual, and thus has to be venerably acknowledged and can, by no means, be belittled or trivialised by 9 adopting an unconcerned and nonchalant dispossession by anyone, fair less the state, After compulsorily acquiring his land By Invoking an expropriatory legislative mechanism. The judicial mandate of human rights dimension, thus, makes it incumbent on the state to solemnly responded to its constitutional obligation to guarantee that a land loser is adequately compensated. The proposition does not admit of any compromise or laxity.” 15. Further, Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Dharnidhar Mishra (D) and another v. State of Bihar and others reported in (2024) 10 SCC 605, has observed as under:- “19. In Delhi Airtech Services (P) Ltd. v. State of U.P, (2011) 9 SCC 354, this Court recognized the right to property as a basic human right in the following words: (SCC P. 379, Para 30) "30. It is accepted in every jurisprudence and by different political thinkers that some amount of property right is an indispensable safeguard against tyranny and economic oppression of the Government. Jefferson was of the view that liberty cannot subsist without the support of property. Property must be secured, as liberty cannot subsist was the opinion of John Adams. Indeed the view that property itself is the seed-bed which must be conserved if other constitutional values are 10 to flourish, is the consensus among political thinkers and jurists.” (emphasis supplied) 20. In Jilubhai Nanbhai Khachar v. State of Gujarat 1995 Supp (1) SCC 596, this Court held as d follows: (SCC P. 627, Para 48) "48. ... In other words, Article 300-A only limits the powers of the State that no person will be deprived of his property save by authority of law. There has to be no deprivation without any sanction of law. Deprivation by any other mode is not acquisition or taking possession under Article 300-A. In other words, if there is no law, there is no deprivation.” (emphasis supplied) 21. In Tukaram Kana Joshi v. MIDC, (2013) 1 SCC 353, this Court held that the State must comply with the procedure for acquisition, requisition, or any other permissible statutory mode. The State being a welfare state governed by the rule of law cannot arrogate to itself a status beyond what is provided by the constitution. 22. This Court in State of Haryana v. Mukesh Kumar (2011) 10 SCC 404, held that the right to property is now considered to be not only a constitutional or statutory right, but also a human right. Human rights have been considered in the realm of individual rights 11 such as right to shelter, livelihood, health, employment, etc. Human rights have gained a multifaceted dimension.” 16. In view of the aforementioned pronouncements of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matters of Lalaram (supra) and Dharnidhar Mishra (D) (supra), instant writ petition is allowed. The respondent authorities, i.e., respondent No.3-Municipal Corporation are directed to initiate proceeding for acquisition of the land within a period of two weeks from the date of production of copy of this order. Respondent No.3 is further directed to complete the exercise within a further period of one month as also to pass appropriate compensation in accordance with The Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013. It is also directed that while initiating proceeding for acquisition of the land, the petitioner should be given appropriate opportunity of hearing in each and every stage and the order should not be passed behind the back of the petitioner. The entire exercise of payment of compensation will be done within a period of two months and the compliance report of the same shall be submitted before the Registrar (Judicial) on or before 28th April, 2025. 17. In the result, instant writ petition is hereby allowed to the extent indicated herein-above. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Yogesh