1 2025:CGHC:30353 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 2537 of 2023 Smt. Brij Kunwar Wd/o Late Vishal Das Aged About 69 Years R/o Village Khisora, P.C. No.30, Gram Panchayat Khisora, Janpad Panchayat Baloda, District : Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Revenue And Disaster Management Department, Secretariat, Mahanadi Bhawan, Nawa Raipur, Atal Nagar, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - Collector (Land Acquisition Officer) Minimata Hasdeo Bango Project, District : Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh 3 - Sub Divisional Officer (R) Jangir, District : Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh 4 - Sub Divisional Officer Hasdeo Right Bank Canal Subdivision No.5 Jarve, District : Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh 5 - Executive Engineer Office Of The Executive Engineer Hasdeo Barrage Water Management Division, Rampur Korba, District : Korba, Chhattisgarh 6 - Tahsildar Baloda, District : Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh 7 - Patwari P.C. No.30, Village Khisora, Janpad Panchayat Baloda, District : Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh. --- Respondent(s) 2 For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Ramcharan Sahu, Advocate. For State : Mr. Praveen Das, Dy. AG with Ms. Poorva Tiwari, PL. Hon'ble Shri Arvind Kumar Verma, Judge Order on Board 03.07.2025 1. The petitioner has filed this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking following reliefs: “10.1 That the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to call for the entire records from the possession of respondent authorities for its kind perusal and allow the petition. 10.2 That this Hon'ble Court may kindly further be pleased to direct the respondent authorities particularly the respondent No. 4 and 5 to pay compensation to the petitioner with interest @ 18% per annum from the date of Acquisition of land of petitioner within stipulated period as per budge (Ann. P-4) and as per the letter dated 19/7/2021 (Ann. P-8) OR in alternative direct the respondent authorities to return the petitioner's acquired land. 10.3 That, any other reliefs which this Hon'ble High Court deems fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case be also granted to the petitioner in the interest of justice” 2. Facts relevant for disposal of this writ petition are that the petitioner, who is 69 years old widow lady, is the owner of the agricultural land area 0.80 acre (0.324 hectare) of Khasra No.1282 situated at village Kishora, P.C. No.30, Tehsil Baloda, District Janjgir-Champa (C.G.). Vide Annexure P-1, respondent-authorities have occupied/acquired the land of the petitioner 3 for construction of the Right Bank Main Canal ( दांयी तट मु ख्यी नहर निनमुण) under the MINIMATA HASDEO BANGO PROJECT without paying any single penny to her towards the said acquired land. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in this regard petitioner has submitted application/complaint before the Chief Minster through Jan- Darshan program and, thereafter, proceeding for enquiry has been initiated by the respondents-authorities. Vide memo dated 07.12.2015 (Annexure P-6), respondent No.6/Tahsildar directed the respondent No.7/Patwari to conduct an enquiry in presence of the petitioner as well as the villagers and, thereafter, submit the report alongwith Panchnama, to which, respondent No.7 after conducting the enquiry has submitted the report vide Annexure P-7 before respondent No.6 on 08.12.2015 mentioning therein that land of Khasra No.1282 situated at village - Kishora appears to be merged 42-60 years ago for construction of the Right Bank Main Canal ( दांयी तट मु ख्यी नहर निनमुण) under the MINIMATA HASDEO BANGO PROJECT. Respondent No.4/SDO wrote a letter to respondent No.5/Executive Engineer mentioning therein that records pertaining to payment of compensation to the petitioner is not available in the office, though forwarded the relevant documents obtained from the office of respondent No.6/Tahsildar. In the year 1988-89 to 1992-93 land of the petitioner has been utilized/acquired by the respondent-authorities for construction of the Right Bank Main Canal ( दांयी तट मु ख्यी नहर निनमुण) under the MINIMATA HASDEO BANGO PROJECT, but till date not a single penny has been awarded to her, hence, he prayed that appropriate direction be issued to the concerned respondent-authority. 4 4. Learned State Counsel submits that there is delay in the claim of the petitioner as the land was acquired about 40-50 years ago, however, investigation/inquiry has been made by the respondent authorities, but the relevant records could not have been traced out, therefore, it is not possible to say that the compensation towards the acquisition of land was paid to the petitioner or not. 5. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 6. As per para 6 of reply filed by the respondent/State, in Khasra Panchsala from the year 1988-89 to 1992-93, Khasra No.1282 area 0.324 hectare, was owned by one Dhaniram & others and the said land was recorded as Right Bank Canal in the relevant revenue records pertaining to the year 1988-89 to 1992-93, thus, it is clear that the said land was already acquired by the Water Resources Department. Copies of the relevant revenue documents is filed herewith as Annexure R/3. 7. As per khasra statement, petitioner is daughter of late Dhaniram and land area 0.80 acre (0.324 hectare) of Khasra No.1282 situated at village - Kishora, P.C. No.30, Tehsil Baloda, District Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) is recorded in the name of the petitioner. 8. In case of Tukaram Kana Joshi & Ors, THR Power of Attorney Holder versus Maharastra Industrial Development & Ors reported in 2013 (1) SCC 353. “Para-11. There are authorities which state that delay and laches extinguish the right to put forth a claim. Most of these authorities pertain to service jurisprudence, grant of compensation for a wrong done to them decades ago, recovery of statutory dues, claim for educational facilities and other categories of similar 5 cases, etc. Though, it is true that there are a few authorities that lay down that delay and laches debar a citizen from seeking remedy, even if his fundamental right has been violated, under Article 32 or 226 of the Constitution, the case at hand deals with a different scenario altogether. Functionaries of the State took over possession of the land belonging to the appellants without any sanction of law. The appellants had asked repeatedly for grant of the benefit of compensation. The State must either comply with the procedure laid down for acquisition, or requisition, or any other permissible statutory mode. There is a distinction, a ?true and concrete distinction, between the principle of "eminent domain" and "police power" of the State. Under certain circumstances, the police power of the State may be used temporarily, to take possession of property but the present case clearly shows that neither of the said powers have been exercised. A question then arises with respect to the authority or power under which the State entered upon the land. It is evident that the act of the State amounts to encroachment, in exercise of "absolute power" which in common parlance is also called abuse of power or use of muscle power. To further clarify this position, it must be noted that the authorities have treated the land owner as a 'subject' of medieval India, but not as a 'citizen' under our constitution. Para-19. The appellants have been seriously discriminated against qua other persons, whose land was also acquired. Some of them were given the benefits of acquisition, including compensation in the year 1966. This kind of discrimination not only breeds corruption, but also dis- respect for governance, as it leads to frustration and to a certain extent, forces persons to take the law into their own hands. The 6 findings of the High Court, that requisite records were not available, or that the appellants approached the authorities at a belated stage are contrary to the evidence available on record and thus, cannot be accepted and excused as it remains a slur on the system of governance and justice alike, and an anathema to the doctrine of equality, which is the soul of our Constitution. Even under valid acquisition proceedings, there is a legal obligation on the part of the authorities to complete such acquisition proceedings at the earliest, and to make payment of requisite compensation. The appeals etc. are required to be decided expeditiously, for the sole reason that, if a person is not paid compensation in time, he will be unable to purchase any land or other immovable property, for the amount of compensation that is likely to be paid to him at a belated stage. 9. In view of above quoted decision, it is clear that respondents-authorities are duty bound to pay the amount of compensation to the petitioner towards the acquired land. 10. Perusal of the records annexed with the writ petition reveals that budget for payment of the compensation/award has already been allotted, therefore, it is crystal clear that petitioner has been seriously discriminated against quo other persons, whose land was also acquired. Some of them were given the benefits of acquisition, including compensation about 40-50 years ago. 11.It is true that petitioner has approached the Authorities concerned at belated stage, but she is widow lady aged about 69 years and it is duty of the authorities to pay the compensation to the petitioner for her acquired land. 7 12. In view of above, instant writ petition is disposed of directing the concerned respondents-authorities to verify the fact that whether earlier compensation/award has been paid to the petitioner or not and if it is found that compensation is not paid yet, then pay the compensation to the petitioner in accordance with relevant law/rules/regulation within a period of ‘06 months’ from the date of receipt of copy of this order. CC as per rules. Sd/- Sd/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) Judge J/-