1 2025:CGHC:27138-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WA No. 387 of 2025 1 - Balchand Oswal S/o Late Shri Nathmal Oswal Aged About 68 Years R/o Village- Mahroomkalan, Tehsil - Khairagarh, District- Khairagarh- Chhuikhadan-Gandai, Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh. 2 - Anandram Mahara S/o Late Shri Raruha Aged About 73 Years R/o. Ward No. 6, Village- Mahroomkalan, Tehsil - Khairagarh, District- Khairagarh-Chhuikhadan-Gandai, Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh. ... Appellants versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Department Of Revenue, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Naya Raipur, District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 2 - Collector Rajnandgaon, Collectorate Office, District- Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh. 3 - Commissioner Directorate Of Industries, 2nd Floor, L I C Of India, Commercial Complex, Pandri, District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 4 - General Manager, District Industries Centre (D I C), Rajnandgaon, District- Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent(s) For Appellants : Mr.Arpan Verma, Advocate For Respondents : Mr.Shashank Thakur, Deputy Advocate General BABLU RAJENDRA BHANARKAR Digitally signed by BABLU RAJENDRA BHANARKAR Date: 2025.06.24 17:34:03 +0530 2 Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru , Judge Judgment on Board Per Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice 24.06.2025 1. Heard Mr.Arpan Verma, learned counsel for the appellants as well as Mr.Shashank Thakur, learned Deputy Advocate General appearing for the respondents/State on IA No.01/2025, which is an application for condonation of delay of 18 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. The appellant has filed this writ appeal against the order dated 6.3.2025 passed by learned Single Judge in WPC No.1877 of 2015 by which the learned Single Judge has dismissed the writ petition filed by the writ petitioners / appellants herein. 5. Brief facts of the case are that the appellants are the residents of village Mehrunkala, Tehsil Khairagarh District Rajnandgaon. The State Government with an intent to establish and develop a new Industrial area in and around the said village Mehrumkala, initiated acquisition proceeding in the said village. The State Government issued the Notification dated 31.3.2010 under Section 4 of the 3 Land Acquisition Act, 1894 for acquisition of 54.924 hectares of the subject land. After due enquiry, a draft award was prepared on 9.6.2010 by the Land Acquisition Officer, Khairagarh and the concerned Department i.e. Commissioner, Directorate of Industries, Raipur also deposited the compensation amount to the tune of Rs.6,69,68,833/-, but the awarded amount was not disbursed to the appellants. Hence, the appellants were constrained to filed WPC No.1592/2014, wherein, an order was passed on 1.9.2014 directing the Collector, Rajnandgaon to consider the appellants’ representation and take appropriate steps towards payment of compensation in accordance with the award. Thereafter, the impugned order dated 26.12.2014 was passed by the Collector, Rajnandgaon. Against which, the appellants have filed writ petition, which was dismissed by the impugned order. Hence, this writ appeal. 6. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the impugned order of rejection of the representation of the writ petitioners regarding disbursement of the amount of compensation award is illegal, erroneous and contrary to law. Learned Single Judge, has failed to considered the legal proposition of the law that the writ petitioners are in possession of the said land and the name of the ancestors of the writ petitioners are also recorded in the revenue record. He further submits that learned Single Judge has failed to appreciate that the writ petitioners and the ancestors of the writ petitioners were in possession of the said land from the past more 4 than 50 years. He also submits that the Collector acted in a prejudicial manner in rejecting the claim of the writ petitioners for grant of compensation. The land even till date has been recorded in the name of the writ petitioners and their family members. It is only in the common good that the writ petitioners permitted their land to be use by the villagers. The said act does not lead to relinquishment of the title of the petitioners over the said lang. The Collector has erroneously applied the judgment of Jagpal Singh Case in the instant matter notwithstanding the fact that the nature of land in question is entirely different. He contended that the Collector has absolutely lost sight of the fact that headed been the case the land not been the private land of the writ petitioners, the same would have never been acquired in the name of the writ petitioners and the compensation computed. After the orders have been passed by the Commissioner finalizing the matter, there was no authority with the Collector to have refused disbursement of the compensation amount in favor of the writ petitioners. He further contended that the principle of Estoppel has been ignored by the respondent authorities or even by learned Single Judge. The Collector has passed an award in favor of the writ petitioners and the same has been upheld by the Commissioner also then the Collector has no power to review his own award to take a different view from before approved award. No proceedings under Section 11A or Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act were pending. He also contended that the denial of compensation violates Article 5 300A (Right to Property) of the Constitution and is a gross abuse of process of law as the state authorities are the one who themselves initiated the acquisition and acknowledging the Appellants/petitioner as owners of the said land. Even otherwise, the action of the respondents in rejecting the application of the writ petitioners for grant of the compensation amount for the land acquired vide impugned Order dated 26.12.2014 is perverse, bad in law and suffers from illegality and is liable to be set aside. He lastly submits that the Collector, Rajnandgaon erred in not holding that mere use of the land for common good i.e. as a charagah land will not curtail the right of ownership of the writ petitioners over the said land and the writ petitioners are the legal owners of the land and have a right to title of the subject land. It is the writ petitioners who themselves given the land to the villager for the purpose of cattle glazing and for the betterment of the villagers. The entire amount has already been deposited before the SDO Cum Land Acquisition Officer, Khairagadh and they just have to disburse it to the writ petitioners whose land has been acquired for the industrial purpose. As such, the writ appeal deserves to be allowed and the impugned order deserves to be set aside. 7. On the other hand, learned State Counsel appearing for the respondents/State opposes the submissions made by learned counsel for the appellants and submits that learned Single Judge after considering all the aspects of the matter has rightly dismissed the writ petition filed by the writ petitioners / appellants herein, in 6 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 the writ appeal. 9. From perusal of the impugned order, it transpires that learned Single Judge while dismissing the writ petition has observed that admittedly, in the Revenue entry in Chakhbandhi Misal pertaining to the year 1954-55 (Annexure R/1), Roopram Lodhi and others have been shown as the possession holders of the subject land and the State of MP has been shown as an owner of the said property. Moreover, on perusal of the reply of the State, it is revealed that the old Khasra of the subject land was 781 and the same was renumbered as 928 (Annexure R/2). In the Khasra entries pertaining to the years 1975-76 to 1979-80, in column No.12 (remarks column), Khasra Nos.928, 929 and 930 have been mentioned as grazing land (Charagah). Learned Single Judge further observed that in the order dated 28.1.2011 passed in WP(227) No.116/2010, it has been materially observed that when charagan is mentioned in the revenue record as a result of confirmation of consolidation, such encumbrance is binding on the holder of the land and he ceases to have any right in or against the land so encumbranced. It was also observed that the consolidation order is not appealable under Section 25 of the Central Provinces Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1928 (Act No.VIII of 1928), but is 7 revisable under Section 26 of the said Act. 10. Considering the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties, perusing the documents appended with writ petition as also in writ appeal and also considering the finding recorded by learned Single Judge while dismissing the writ petition filed by the writ petitioners / appellants, 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/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Bablu