1 2025:CGHC:3861 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WP227 No. 558 of 2018 1 - Ram Kumar S/o Shri Chhote Lal Yadav Aged About 62 Years R/o Village Karumahu Tahsil Akaltara District Janjgir Champa Chhattisgarh., District : Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh 2 - Nand Kumar S/o Shri Chhote Lal Yadav Aged About 60 Years R/o Village Karumahu Tahsil Akaltara District Janjgir Champa Chhattisgarh., District : Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh 3 - Shiv Kumar S/o Shri Chhote Lal Yadav Aged About 48 Years R/o Village Karumahu Tahsil Akaltara District Janjgir Champa Chhattisgarh., District : Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - Ishwari S/o Shri Chhote Lal Yadav Aged About 45 Years R/o Village Karumahu Tahsil Akaltara District Janjgir Champa Chhattisgarh., District : Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh 2 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Sdo (Revenue) Champa District Janjgir Champa (Chhattisgarh) (Wrongly Mention Not Been Mention The Respondent 02 In The Cause Title), District : Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh ---- Respondents For Petitioners : Mr. Dheerendra Pandey, Advocate For State : Mr. Sanjeev Agrawal, PL Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 22.01.2025 1. The petitioners have filed this petition seeking the following relief(s):- Digitally signed by REKHA SINGH -2- “10.1 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to call the entire records relates to this case, before this Hon'ble Court for its kind perusal. 10.2 That, the Hon'ble Court may be pleased to quashed the impugned order/award dated 16.05.2018 pass by the learned First ADJ Janjgir District Janjir-Champa (C.G.) in land acquisition MJC No. 22/2016 and granted u/s 76 of Rehabilitation, and Rehabilitation, Proper Replacement Transparency Rights Act 2013 for Compensation apportionment of rupees 19,13,567/-filed by the petitioners/applicants before the learned First ADJ Janjgir-Champa. 10.3 That the Hon'ble court may kindly be pleased to allow the writ petition filling against the impugned order/award dated 16.05.2018 10.4 To issue any other order (S) direction (s), writ (s) which the Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper in the instant petition.” 2. The facts of the present case are that the petitioners and respondent No.1 are real brothers and their lands bearing Survey Nos.228/8 and 228/11 admeasuring 0.280 and 0.004 hectares were acquired for the construction of National Highway No.200/49 and the award was passed on 30.07.2016. The Land Acquisition Officer awarded compensation to the tune of Rs.19,13,567/- in favour of the petitioners and respondent No.1. In the award, the name of petitioner No.3 was wrongly mentioned as Shivkumari and it was corrected on 03.10.2016 but objection was raised by respondent No.1. The petitioners claimed 75% share of compensation and according to them, respondent No.1 was entitled to get only 25%. Respondent No.1 raised an objection to the effect that in the year 1986, the entire property recorded in the name of the petitioners and respondent No.1 was partitioned and the acquired survey numbers were in his share, therefore, he alone is entitled to get compensation. 3 3. The petitioners filed a Miscellaneous Land Acquisition Case No.22/2016 for apportionment of compensation. The learned First Additional District Judge, Janjgir-Champa held that respondent No.1 is the owner of Survey Nos.228/8 and 228/11 and he alone has been held entitled to receive compensation. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would argue that the award was passed by the Land Acquisition Officer in favour of the petitioners and the same has been ignored by the learned Court below. He would further submit that there was no dispute with regard to the rights of the parties over the acquired land rather an application was moved for apportionment of the amount of compensation and thus, the learned Court below committed an error of law by declaring the right of respondent No.1 alone. He would contend that the learned Court below failed to consider the revenue documents. 5. On the other hand, Mr. Agrawal, the learned Panel Lawyer appearing for the State would oppose the submissions made by learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and would support the award passed by the learned First Additional District Judge, Janjgir Champa. 6. Heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the documents placed on the record. 7. A perusal of the award would show that Survey Nos.228/2 and 228/11 were acquired for the construction of the National Highway. An award was passed in favour of the petitioners and respondent No.1 to the tune of Rs.19,13,567/-. The petitioners claimed that -4- they were entitled to get an equal share. 8. Respondent No.1/Ishwari Yadav in evidence categorically stated that Survey No.228/8 fell in his share on partition, Survey No.228/11 was in possession of his parents, the said land was given to him and he is in possession of both plots. He claimed right over the amount of compensation alone. 9. Petitioner No.1/Ramkumar admitted the fact that the lands bearing Survey Nos. 228/2 and 228/11 were in possession of respondent No.1. Though it was stated by Ramkumar that the subject lands were sold by respondent No.1 to petitioner No.3 but the petitioners failed to produce any documents to demonstrate this fact. The petitioners have admitted the fact of partition. 10.Learned First Additional District Judge Janjgir-Champa vide award dated 16.05.2018 found respondent No.1 alone entitled to receive the award. 11.Taking into consideration the submissions made by the parties, the documents annexed along with the petition and the evidence of the parties, in my opinion, the award passed by the learned First Additional District Judge, Janjgir-Champa dated 16.05.2018 does not require interference. 12.Consequently, the present petition fails and is hereby dismissed. No cost(s). Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge Rekha