1 2025:CGHC:27930-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WA No. 398 of 2025 Municipal Corporation Rajnandgaon Through Its Commissioner, Rajnandgaon, Distt. Rajnandgaon (C.G.) ...Appellant versus 1 - 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. 2 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of Urban Administration Mantralaya Mahanadi Bhawan Capital Complex , Naya Raipur District Raipur, Chhattisgarh 3 - The Secretary, Government Of Chhattisgarh Department Of Town And Country Planning D K S Bhawan Raipur Chhattisgarh. 4 - The Collector , Rajnandgaon, Dist.- Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh., ... Respondents For Appellant : Mr.Rajendra Patel, Advocate For Respondents No.2 to 4/State : Mr.Shashank Thakur, Deputy Advocate General Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru , Judge Judgment on Board Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice BABLU RAJENDRA BHANARKAR Digitally signed by BABLU RAJENDRA BHANARKAR Date: 2025.06.27 10:40:45 +0530 2 26.06.2025 1. Heard Mr. Rajendra Patel, learned counsel for the appellant as well as Mr.Shashank Thakur, learned Deputy Advocate General appearing for respondents No.2 to 4/State on IA No.01/2025, which is an application for condonation of delay of 27 days in filing the present writ appeal. 2. For the reasons mentioned in the application, same is allowed. Delay is condoned. 3. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the writ appeal is heard finally. 4. This writ appeal is presented against the order dated 12.02.2025 passed by learned Single Judge in WPC No.678 of 2018, whereby the writ petition filed by writ petitioner / respondent No.1 herein was allowed by learned Single Judge. 5. The facts of the case are that the writ 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 writ petitioner, even after occupying the land of the writ petitioner illegally, no compensation or award was given to the writ petitioner for the 3 subject land of acquisition in accordance of law. Being aggrieved with the inaction of the respondent authorities, she was compelled to approach this Court seeking protection of the rights and she 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 therein to compute the market value of the land as on date and pay the price of the same. The writ petitioner was having legitimate expectation that the order of this Court will be complied with by the respondent authorities, she made representation to the concerned Department and provided the copy of the order of this Court. Even after making several requests to the 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. Feeling aggrieved with delay in payment of compensation, the writ petitioner has preferred a review petition bearing REVP No.1 of 2015, which was dismissed by this Court by the Division Bench of this Court on 19.03.2015 and the order dated 23.04.2013 passed in Writ Petition (C) No. 7375 of 2009 become binding and final. In spite of the order of this Court, no steps till date have 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 4 without any justification or reasons for more than 5 years. The writ 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 writ petitioner has not been paid a single penny for the land illegally occupied by the respondent authorities. Therefore, she has filed writ petition, which was allowed by learned Single Judge by the impugned order. Hence, this writ appeal. 6. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that learned Single Judge has failed to properly consider and appreciate the reply submitted by the appellant/respondent No. 3 without any proper discussion upon the averments in the reply passed the impugned order by allowing the writ petition. Learned Single Judge has failed to see that no illegal or malafide act has been committed by the appellant and while observing the illegality and malafides of the appellant there is no proper reasoning or discussion as to how the appellant has committed illegality and as to what illegality and malafide act has been committed by the appellant. He further submits that while making the observation in para 13 of the order there is no discussion with respect to the present status of the land in question though the appellant has stated in its reply that the appellant has never used the writ petitioner's land for the construction of road and as on date no road has been constructed 5 over the land in question and it is only shown in the master plan of the Town and Country Planning which Itself would not grant right to the petitioner for getting the land acquired and compensation being granted for said acquisition unless and until the authorities decide to acquire the land and construct a road over it. He also submits that as on date there is no road constructed over the land in question nor there is any proposal for construction of road, the writ petitioner is still free to use the land but only in order to get the compensation she has filed the writ petition. He contended that learned Single Judge has failed to consider that the appellant does not have any authority to initiate and carry out the acquisition proceedings as the said power is vested upon the State government under the Act 2013, therefore the order impugned is not sustainable in the eyes of law. He further contended that learned Single Judge also did not consider and discuss the issue raised by the appellant with respect to maintainability of the subsequent writ petition on the same cause of action. As such, the writ appeal deserves to be allowed and the impugned order passed by learned Single Judge deserves to be set aside. 7. On the other hand, learned Deputy Government Advocate appearing for respondents No.2 to 4/State opposes the submissions made by learned counsel for the appellant and submits that learned Single Judge after considering all the aspects of the matter has rightly allowed the writ petition filed by 6 the writ petitioner / respondent No.1 herein, in which no interference is called for. 8. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned order and other documents appended with writ appeal. 9. From perusal of the impugned order, it transpires that learned Single Judge while allowing the writ petition has observed 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 writ petitioner, they have to follow the procedures and have to pay the compensation upon acquisition of the land of the writ petitioner in accordance with law. In such circumstance, they cannot escape from their liability to pay compensation. Learned Single Judge directed the respondent authorities, i.e., respondent No.3-Municipal Corporation 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 writ petitioner should be given appropriate opportunity of hearing in 7 each and every stage and the order should not be passed behind the back of the writ 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. 10. Considering the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties, perusing the documents appended with writ appeal as also with writ petition and also considering the finding recorded by learned Single Judge while allowing the writ petition filed by the writ petitioner / respondent No.1 herein, we are of the considered opinion that learned Single Judge has not committed any illegality, irregularity or jurisdictional error in the impugned order warranting interference by this Court. 11. Accordingly, the writ appeal being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. No cost(s). Sd/- Sd/-Sd/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Bablu