1 / 5 2025:CGHC:24238-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WA No. 358 of 2025 • Ambika Prasad Dewangan S/o Late Dwarika Nath Dewangan Aged About 61 Years R/o Baigapara, Near Shitla Mandir, Durg, District Durg Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, School Education Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, New Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh 2 Director Public Instructions, Directorate, Chhattisgarh, Pension Bada, Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 3 District Education Officer Durg, District : Durg, Chhattisgarh 4 Principal, Govt. Higher Secondary School, Selud, Tahsil Patan, District Durg Chhattisgarh 5 Collector/ Land Acquisition Officer, Durg, District Durg, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent(s) JYOTI SHARMA Digitally signed by JYOTI SHARMA Date: 2025.06.17 10:42:14 +0530 2 / 5 For Appellant : Mr. H.B. Agrawal, Senior Advocate along with Ms. Sandhya Rao, Advocate For Respondent/State : Mr. Sangharsh Pandey, G.A. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru , Judge Judgment on Board Per Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice 16.06.2025 1. The appellant/writ petitioner has filed this writ appeal assailing the order dated 07.03.2025 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in WPS No. 2030 of 2015 by which, the learned Single Judge has disposed off the petition filed by the appellant/writ petitioner. 2. The writ petition was filed by the petitioner contending that the petitioner cannot be deprived of his property under Article 300A of the Constitution of India without due procedure of law Since the respondent authorities have utilized the land of the petitioner for a substantial period, a suitable compensation and rent may be fixed for such unauthorized use. Learned counsel for the petitioner by drawing attention of the Court towards the letter sent by the District Education Officer, Durg dated 11.8.2015 to the Director, Public Education Directorate, wherein, it has been stated that in the subject land, a school has been constructed after more than 3 / 5 10 years, without any acquisition, an affidavit has been filed by the State in the year 2024 to the effect that the subject land has been vacated and separated by fencing on 31.7.2023. He would submit that if the State is not inclined to acquire the subject land, a suitable compensation may be awarded to the petitioner for such use of the land by the respondent authorities. 3. In the order under challenge, the learned Single Judge has observed as under:- “5. An affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondents/State stating evidently therein that it had encroached the land of the petitioner though it has also been stated that no permanent structure has been erected on the subject land and only plantation was done. However, now, the said encroachment site has been completely separated by fencing on 31.7.2023. 6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case as also considering the affidavit filed by the State and further considering that in respect of an area of 0.03 hectare, the present writ petition has been filed and lastly, considering the use availed on the subject land by the respondent authorities, this Court deems it appropriate to award compensation to the tune of Rs.25.000/- to the petitioner subjed furnishing a No 4 / 5 Objection Certificate in the form an affidavit from the other account holders of the subject land, which shall be paid by the respondents jointly and severally within a period of 60 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, failing which, the petitioner would be entitled for the interest @ 12% per annum till its realization from the date of passing of this order. Ordered accordingly. 7. Accordingly, this Petition stands disposed of.” 4. The writ appeal has been filed by the appellant reiterating the same plea that the interest ought have been granted to the petitioner/ appellant from 1965 till 07.03.2025 at the rate of 12% and the order passed by the single judge is by considering the affidavit of state only. 5. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondent/State submits that the learned Single Judge has rightly passed the order. 6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available in the record. 7. Considering the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties, perusing the impugned order and the finding recorded by the learned Single Judge, this court of the view that the learned single judge has rightly granted the compensation of Rs. 25,000/- 5 / 5 to the petitioner as no construction was made on the land in dispute and the said land was never used by the respondents. 8. In view of foregoing, we are of the considered view that the learned Single Judge has not committed any illegality, irregularity or jurisdictional error, warranting interference of this Court. 9. Accordingly, the writ appeal being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. SD/- SD/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Jyoti/ $ Bhilwar