1 + 2025:CGHC:7594 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 902 of 2014 1 - Lalji Bhaina S/o Shri Manohar Aged About 76 Years R/o Naya Baradwar, Tahsil Sakti, Distt. Janjgir Champa, Civil And Revenue Distt. Janjgir P.S. Baradwar,, Chhattisgarh 2 - Ravi Shankar Bhaina S/o Shri Sukhlal, Aged About 52 Years R/o Naya Baradwar, Tahsil Sakti, Distt. Janjgir Champa, Civil And Revenue Distt. Janjgir P.S. Baradwar, , District : Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh 3 - Beerbhadra S/o Sukhlal Aged About 44 Years R/o Naya Baradwar, Tahsil Sakti, Distt. Janjgir Champa, Civil And Revenue Distt. Janjgir P.S. Baradwar, , District : Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh 4 - Gouri Bai Wd/o Sukhlal Aged About 74 Years R/o Naya Baradwar, Tahsil Sakti, Distt. Janjgir Champa, Civil And Revenue Distt. Janjgir P.S. Baradwar, , District : Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of Panchayat And Rural Development, New Mantralaya, Mahanadi - Bhawan New Raipur Distt. Raipur C.G., Chhattisgarh 2 - Chhattisgarh Rural Road Development Authority, Through Its Ceo, Civil Lines Raipur C.G. , District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 3 - Union Of India Through The Secretary Ministry Of Rural Development, New Delhi 110001, Delhi 4 - The Collector Janjgir Champa, Distt. Janjgir Champa C.G., District : Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh 5 - Sub Divisional Officer Sakti, District : Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh 6 - Collector Sakti, District Sakti (C.G.) ---- Respondents For Petitioners : Mr. Sushobhit Singh, Advocate Digitally signed by REKHA SINGH -2- For State : Mr. Pramod Shrivastava, Dy. G.A. For Respondent No.3 : Mr. Sumit Singh, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 12.02.2025 1. The petitioners have filed this petition seeking the following relief(s):- “i) That, this Hon'ble court may kindly be pleased to issue a suitable writ, order, direction directing the respondents to call for the records pertaining to the acquisition of land of the petitioners. ii) That, this Hon'ble court may kindly be pleased to issue a suitable writ, order, direction and quash the impugned order dated 10.01.14 (Annexure P-1). iii) That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue suitable writ, order, direction and direct the respondents to grant suitable compensation for the lands under the new Act of 2013 as per the prevailing market value. iv) Any other relief / reliefs which may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case, may also be allowed. (v) "That, the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue a direction directing the respondents to disburse the award amount Rs. 73956/- along with interest at the rate of 15% per annum from year 2002 as per Section 34 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894." 2. Mr. Singh, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would submit that the petitioners are members of the Scheduled Tribes community and were owners of the diverted land situated over National Highway Baradwar bearing Survey Nos. 776/1 and 778 total ad-measuring 0.15 acres. He would further submit that in the year 2002-03, the respondent authorities after the survey started construction of a road under the Pradhan Mantri Gram Sadak 3 Yojna. He would contend that no notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short the ‘Act of 1894’) was issued and no inquiry was conducted according to the provisions of Section 5A of the Act of 1894. He would further contend that the respondent authorities forcefully took possession of their lands. He would state that the petitioners made representations but no heed was paid. He would further state that the petitioners are entitled to get compensation according to the provisions of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (for short ‘the Act of 2013’) which came into force on 01.01.2014. He would also submit that as the land acquisition proceeding was not finalized prior to 01.01.2014, according to the provisions of Section 24 of the Act of 2013, the respondent authorities should initiate a land acquisition proceeding. He would further argue that the award has already been passed and the same is under challenge. He would also argue that the order passed by the Collector, Janjgir-Champa in the exercise of the power under Section 18 of the Act of 1894 is liable to be quashed whereby the matter was referred to the District and Sessions Judge, Sakti vide order dated 10.01.2014. 3. On the other hand, learned counsels appearing for the respective respondents would oppose the submissions made by Mr. Singh. They would submit that earlier Writ Petition No.1346 of 2013 was filed by the petitioners and the same was disposed of vide order dated 09.09.2013 whereby the petitioners were permitted to make representations and the Collector, Janjgir-Champa was directed to decide it within a period of four months. They would further submit -4- that the provisions of Section 24 of the Act of 2013 would not attract as the possession of the land was taken over prior to 01.01.2014 and a road was also constructed. It is also contended that the petitioners may avail the remedy available under the law and the present petition is not maintainable. 4. Heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the documents placed on record. 5. Section 24 of the Act of 2013 reads as under:- 24. Land acquisition process under Act No. 1 of 1894 shall be deemed to have lapsed in certain cases- (1)Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, in any case of land acquisition proceedings initiated under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894,- (a)where no award under section 11 of the said Land Acquisition Act has been made, then, all provisions of this Act relating to the determination of compensation shall apply; or (b)where an award under said section 11 has been made, then such proceedings shall continue under the provisions of the said Land Acquisition Act, as if the said Act has not been repealed. (2)Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1), in case of land acquisition proceedings initiated under the Land Acquisition Act, 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.” 6. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Indore Development Authority Vs. Manoharlal and others, 2020 (8) SCC 129 has held as under:- “366.3. The word ‘or’ used in Section 24(2) between possession and compensation has to be read as ‘nor’ or as ‘and’. The deemed lapse of land acquisition proceedings under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act takes place where due to inaction of authorities for five years or more prior to commencement of the said Act, the 5 possession of land has not been taken nor compensation has been paid. In other words, in case possession has been taken, compensation has not been paid then there is no lapse. Similarly, if compensation has been paid, possession has not been taken then there is no lapse.” 7. Admittedly, the possession of the land was taken over for the construction of a road prior to 01.01.2014, therefore, a fresh land acquisition proceeding according to the provisions of the Act of 2013 cannot be initiated. 8. Further, an award has already been passed and the amount of compensation was deposited on 13.07.2017 with the Land Acquisition Officer. If the petitioners are not satisfied with the quantum of award, they may approach the authorities according to the provisions of the Act of 1894 for enhancement of compensation and further claiming interest. 9. A perusal of the order dated 10.01.2014 (Annexure P/1) would show that the matter of the petitioners was referred to the District and Sessions Judge, Sakti according to the provisions of Section 18 of the Act of 1894. The petitioners have not placed any document to establish that they participated in the proceedings before the learned District and Sessions Judge, Sakti, therefore, this petition at this juncture is disposed of reserving liberty in favour of the petitioners to approach the concerned District and Sessions Judge, Sakti for redressal of their grievances. 10. With the aforesaid observation(s)/direction(s), the present petition is disposed of. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge Rekha