1 2025:CGHC:657 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 796 of 2014 1. Indal Kumar And Ors. S/o Sukchand Tandan Aged About 37 Years R/o Village Navagaon, Tahsil Arang, P.S. Mandir Hasoud, Civil And Revenue Distt. Raipur C.G. , Chhattisgarh 2. Deleted (Mahetaru Das Baghel) (Died) Honble Court Order Dated 01/03/2024. 2.1 - Chandrika Bai Baghel W/o Late Mahetaru Das Baghel R/o Village Nawagaon (Khapri), Arang, Raipur Chhattisgarh. 2.2 - Teshwan Baghel S/o Late Mahetaru Das Baghel R/o Village Nawagaon (Khapri), Arang, Raipur Chhattisgarh. 2.3 - Hemant Kumar S/o Late Mahetaru Das Baghel R/o Village Nawagaon (Khapri), Arang, Raipur Chhattisgarh. 2.4 - Dinesh Kumar Baghel S/o Late Mahetaru Das Baghel R/o Village Nawagaon (Khapri), Arang, Raipur Chhattisgarh. 2.5 - Gunja Baghel D/o Late Mahetaru Das Baghel R/o Village Nawagaon (Khapri), Arang, Raipur Chhattisgarh. 2.6 - Rupesh Baghel S/o Late Mehetaru Das Baghel R/o Village Nawagaon (Khapri), Arang, Raipur Chhattisgarh. 3. Alam S/o Bisrami Aged About 58 Years R/o Village Navagaon, Tahsil Arang, P.S. Mandir Hasoud, Civil And Revenue Distt. Raipur C.G. , District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 4. Deleted (Jeevan Lal) (Died) Honble Court Order Dated 01/03/2024 4.1 - Suman Tandan W/o Late Jivan Lal Tandan R/o Village Nawagaon -1 (Nawagaon), Raipur Rakhi Chhattisgarh. 4.2 - Nirmala Tandan S/o Late Jivan Lal Tandan R/o Village Nawagaon -1 (Nawagaon), Raipur Rakhi Chhattisgarh. 4.3 - Kunal Tandan S/o Late Jivan Lal Tandan R/o Village Nawagaon -1 (Nawagaon), Raipur Rakhi Chhattisgarh. 4.4 - Jogendra Tandan S/o Late Jivan Lal Tandan R/o Village Nawagaon -1 (Nawagaon), Raipur Rakhi Chhattisgarh. 2 4.5 - Madhu Tandan D/o Late Jivan Lal Tandan R/o Village Nawagaon -1 (Nawagaon), Raipur Rakhi Chhattisgarh. 4.6 - Ravina Tandan D/o Late Jevan Lal Tandan R/o Village Nawagaon -1 (Nawagaon), Raipur Rakhi Chhattisgarh. 4.7 - Shiva Tandan S/o Late Jivan Lal Tandan R/o Village Nawagaon -1 (Nawagaon), Raipur Rakhi Chhattisgarh. 4.8 - Tilak Tandan S/o Late Jivan Lal Tandan R/o Village Nawagaon -1 (Nawagaon), Raipur Rakhi Chhattisgarh. 5. Dhani Lal S/o Tularam Aged About 48 Years R/o Village Navagaon, Tahsil Arang, P.S. Mandir Hasoud, Civil And Revenue Distt. Raipur C.G. , District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 6. Santram S/o Late Anand Ram Aged About 41 Years R/o Village Navagaon, Tahsil Arang, P.S. Mandir Hasoud, Civil And Revenue Distt. Raipur C.G. , District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 7. Chousi @ Prabhu S/o Bhuneshwar Aged About 60 Years R/o Village Navagaon, Tahsil Arang, P.S. Mandir Hasoud, Civil And Revenue Distt. Raipur C.G. , District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 8. Resham S/o Punau Aged About 35 Years R/o Village Navagaon, Tahsil Arang, P.S. Mandir Hasoud, Civil And Revenue Distt. Raipur C.G. , District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 9. Kamta S/o Jhangalu Aged About 57 Years R/o Village Navagaon, Tahsil Arang, P.S. Mandir Hasoud, Civil And Revenue Distt. Raipur C.G. , District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 10. Hemlal S/o Bhonduram Aged About 34 Years R/o Village Navagaon, Tahsil Arang, P.S. Mandir Hasoud, Civil And Revenue Distt. Raipur C.G. , District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 11. Sawant S/o Sonu Aged About 62 Years R/o Village Navagaon, Tahsil Arang, P.S. Mandir Hasoud, Civil And Revenue Distt. Raipur C.G. , District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 12. Sarju S/o Bishal Aged About 57 Years R/o Village Navagaon, Tahsil Arang, P.S. Mandir Hasoud, Civil And Revenue Distt. Raipur C.G. , District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 13. Sher Singh S/o Late Narsingh Aged About 42 Years R/o Village Navagaon, Tahsil Arang, P.S. Mandir Hasoud, Civil And Revenue Distt. Raipur C.G. , District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 14. Balram Laxman Aged About 55 Years R/o Village Navagaon, Tahsil Arang, P.S. Mandir Hasoud, Civil And Revenue Distt. Raipur C.G. , District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 15. Goukaran S/o Bhau Aged About 38 Years R/o Village Navagaon, Tahsil Arang, P.S. Mandir Hasoud, Civil And Revenue Distt. Raipur C.G. , District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 3 ... Petitioner(s) versus 1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of Housing And Environment, Mantralaya, Naya Raipur C.G., Chhattisgarh 2. Department Of Agriculture And Animal Husbandry Through Secretary, Mahanadi Bhawan, Naya Raipur C.G. 3. The Collector Raipur, Distt. Raipur C.G. 4. Naya Raipur Development Authority, Through Its Chief Executive Officer New Rajendra Nagar, In Front Of Vijeta Complex, R.D.A. Building, Raipur C.G. 5. Land Acquisition Officer / Sub Divisional Officer Tahsil Aarang Abhanpur, Civil And Revenue Distt. Raipur C.G. ... Respondent(s) (Cause Title is taken from Case Information System) For Petitioners : Ms. Hamida Siddiqui, Advocate along with Mr. Sohil Afzal, Advocate For State : Mr. Luv Sharma, Panel Lawyer For Respondent No. 4 : Mr. Anuroop Panda, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 06 .01.2025 1. By way of this petition, the petitioners have sought the following relief(s):- “10.1 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to call for the entire records pertaining to the Land Acquisition case No. 35-A/82/2012-13 pending before the Sub Division Officer. 10.2 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash the entire Land Acquisition Proceeding pending before Sub Divisional Officer-Cum-Land Acquisition Officer, Arang-Abhanpur, in Land Acquisition Case No. 35-A/82/2012-13. 10.3 This Hon'ble Court may kindly be quashed the notification issued under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act in Revenue Case No. 35-A/82/2012- 13. 4 10.4 Any other relief, which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper, may also be passed in favour of the petitioner together with cost of the petition. 10.5 That, this Hon'ble Court pleased to quash the notification under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act and notice under Section 9 of the Act. 10.6 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash the award dated 25.04.2015 passed in Land Acquisition Case No. 35-A/82/2012-13.” 2. Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that respondent No. 4 proposed the acquisition of 1.11 hectares of land at village Navagaon, Patwari Circle No. 18, Tahsil Arang, District Raipur bearing survey No. 25 for the development and construction of layer one of Raipur Development Area. She would further submit that a notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as Act, 1894) was published on 07.08.2013, and thereafter, a notification under Section 6 was published on 08.01.2014. She would further submit that the petition was filed against those notifications, and thereafter, an award was passed on 25.04.2015. She would also submit that according to the provisions of Section 24 of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, the land acquisition proceeding is not concluded within a period of 12 months from the date of publication of the notification under Section 6 of the Act, 1894, the proceeding would lapse. It is contended that the notification under Section 6 of the Act, 1894 was issued on 08.01.2014, whereas, the award was passed on 25.04.2015, and thus, land acquisition proceedings were not concluded within a period of 12 months, and thus, the proceedings were deemed to have lapsed. It is further contended that the issue involved in the present case has already been decided by a Division Bench in the matter of Naya Raipur Development Authority vs. Gaukaran and 5 others, Writ Appeal No. 30 of 2019. 3. On the other hand, learned counsels appearing for the respondents would oppose. They would submit that the procedure was followed by the Land Acquisition Officer in the proceedings. They would further submit that the similarly situated land oustees have filed WPC No. 6782/2011 which is pending consideration. They would also submit that the instant petition deserves to be dismissed. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents placed on record. 5. Admittedly, a notification under Section 4 was published on 07.08.2013 and under Section 6, it was published on 08.01.2014. According to the provisions of the Act, 1894, an award was passed on 25.04.2015. According to the provisions of Section 24, the land acquisition proceedings were not concluded within a period of 12 months from the date of notification issued under Section 6 of the Act, 1894. 6. The Hon’ble Division Bench in the matter of Gaukaran (supra) while dealing with a similar issue in para 11, 12, 13 and 14 held as under :- “11. The similar issue was came up before the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Haryana State Industrial and Infrastructure Development Corporation Limited (supra) and the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held in para 24, 26, 27, 28 and 47 of its judgment that:- 24. A careful scanning of all the decisions cited by both sides would thus reveal that all those decisions hold that land acquisition proceedings under the LA Act begin with the publication of a notification under sub- section (1) of Section 4. A declaration under Section 6 of the LA Act is one of the steps under the LA Act which ultimately culminates into the conclusion of the proceedings by making an award and taking over possession of the acquired land. A declaration under Section 6 cannot be made without holding an inquiry unless urgency clause under Section 17 is applied. Publication of a notification under sub-section (1) of Section 4 of the LA Act is condition precedent for taking further steps. Hence, such a notification is the starting point of acquisition proceedings under the LA Act. The 6 initiation of the proceedings is by the publication of the notification under sub-section (1) of Section 4 of the LA Act. 26. We are of the considered view that while construing the expression "initiated" used in Section 24(1) of the 2013 Act with reference to commencement of acquisition proceedings under the LA Act, the decision in Ambica Quarry Works v. State of Gujarat [(1987) 1 SCC 213] is also to be borne in mind. In Ambica Quarry Works case (supra) while construing the words "may be renewed" this Court held that all interpretations must subserve and help implementation of the intention of the Act concerned. 27. The legislative intention behind bringing up the 2013 Act was to have a unified enactment facilitating land acquisition for industrialisation, infrastructure and urbanisation projects in a timely and transparent manner and at the same time, providing for just and fair compensation, to make adequate provision for rehabilitation and resettlement mechanism for affected persons and their families. As a Preamble its Objects and Reasons have been given in the 2013 Act thus: An Act to ensure, in consultation with institutions of local self-government and Gram Sabhas established under the Constitution, a humane, participative, informed and transparent process for land acquisition for industrialisation, development of essential infrastructural facilities and urbanisation with the least disturbance to the owners of the land and other affected families and provide just and fair compensation to the affected families whose land has been acquired or proposed to be acquired or are affected by such acquisition and make adequate provisions for such affected persons for their rehabilitation and resettlement and for ensuring that the cumulative outcome of compulsory acquisition should be that affected persons become partners in development leading to an improvement in their post acquisition social and economic status and for matters connected therewith or incidental thereto." 28. Bearing in mind the aforesaid legislative intention we will have to construe Section 24 and also the word "initiated" employed in Section 24(1) of the 2013 Act. The word "initiated" has to be construed with a view to implement the aforesaid twin purposes of providing fair and just compensation and facilitating acquisition of land for industrialisation, infrastructure and urbanisation projects. We have already referred to the impact of "initiation" of land acquisition proceedings and its culmination in an award under Section 11 of the LA Act and also non-culmination in such an award. 47. To conclude, we hold that for the purposes of sub- section (1) of Section 24 of the 2013 Act, the proceedings under the LA Act shall be treated as initiated on publication of a notification under sub- section (1) of Section 4 of the LA Act. We further hold that when clause (a) of sub-section (1) of Section 24 of 7 the 2013 Act is applicable, the proceedings shall continue as per the LA Act. However, only for the determination of compensation amount, the provisions of the 2013 Act shall be applied” 12. In the matter of The Executive Engineer, Gosikhurd Project Ambadi, Bhandara, Maharashtra Vidarbha Irrigation Development Corporation Vs. Mahesh and others, reported in (2022) 2 SCC 772 the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held in para No.29, 30 and 31 of its judgment that :- 29. Given the object and purpose behind Sections 24 and 26 to 30 of the 2013 Act, we notice that practical absurdities and anomalies may arise if the two-year period for making of an award in terms of Section 11-A of the 1894 Act commencing from the date of issue of the declaration is applied to the awards to be made under Section 24(1)(a) of the 2013 Act. This would mitigate against the underlying legislative intent behind prescription of time for making of an award in respect of saved acquisition proceedings initiated under the repealed 1894 Act, which is twofold: (i) to give sufficient time to the authorities to determine compensation payable under the 2013 Act; and (ii) to ensure early and expedited payment to the landowners by reducing the period from two years under Section 11-A of the 1894 Act to twelve months under Section 25 of the 2013 Act. In case of declarations issued in January 2012, on application of Section 11-A of the 1894 Act, the time to determine compensation under the 2013 Act would vary from a day to a month, and while in cases where the declarations were issued within twelve months of the repeal of the 1894 Act, the landowners would be at a disadvantage as an award beyond the twelve-month period specified in Section 25 of the 2013 Act would be valid. In the first set of cases, given the onerous factual and legal exercise involved in determination of compensation and the need to issue notification under Section 26(2) of the 2013 Act, publication of the awards would be impractical. Hasty and incorrect awards would be deleterious for the landowners. If the awards are not pronounced, the acquisition proceedings would lapse defeating the legislative intent behind Section 24(1)(a) of the 2013 Act to save such proceedings. We would, therefore, exercise our choice to arrive at a just, fair and harmonious construction consistent with the legislative intent. 30. A rational approach so as to further the object and purpose of Sections 24 and 26 to 30 of the 2013 Act is required. We are conscious that Section 25 refers to publication of a notification under Section 19 as the starting point of limitation. In the context of clause (a) to Section 24(1) of the 2013 Act there would be no notification under Section 19, but declaration under Section 6 of the 1894 Act. When the declarations under Section 6 are valid as on 1-1-2014, it is necessary to give effect to the legislative intention and reckon the starting point. In the context of Section 24(1)(a) of the 2013 Act, declarations under Section 6 of the 1894 Act 8 are no different and serve the same purpose as the declarations under Section 19 of the 2013 Act. 31. Consequently, we hold that in cases covered by clause (a) to Section 24(1) of the 2013 Act, the limitation period for passing/making of an award under Section 25 of the 2013 Act would commence from 1-1- 2014, that is, the date when the 2013 Act came into force. Awards passed under clause (a) to Section 24(1) would be valid if made within twelve months from 1-1- 2014. This dictum is subject to the caveat stated in paras 20 to 23 (supra) that a declaration which has lapsed in terms of Section 11-A of the 1894 Act before or on 31-12-2013 would not get revived.” 13. The Division Bench of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the matter of Vitthal Rama Pawar (Katkari) and others Vs. Deputy Collector (Acquisition) Raigad-Alibag and others, reported in 2024 SCC OnLine Bom 149, has held in para No.21 and 22 of its judgment as under :- 21. Applying the aforesaid principles, we are unable to accept the submission of Ms. Bane that the decision rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Haryana State Industrial & Infrastructure Development Corporation Limited (supra) has impliedly overruled its decision in Executive Engineer, Gosikhurd Project Ambadi, Bhandara, Maharashtra Vidarbha Irrigation Development Corporation (supra). This is more so when one take into consideration that the said judgment in Executive Engineer, Gosikhurd Project Ambadi, Bhandara, Maharashtra Vidarbha Irrigation Development Corporation (supra) has been specifically referred to in Haryana State Industrial & Infrastructure Development Corporation Limited (in paragraph 9 thereof), and the same has not been overruled, either expressly or by necessary implication. Another factor that persuades us to take this view is that one of the Judges in both the matters was the same (A.M. Khanvilkar, J. as he then was). If the Supreme Court, in Haryana State Industrial & Infrastructure Development Corporation Limited wanted to overrule its judgment in Executive Engineer, Gosikhurd Project Ambadi, Bhandara, Maharashtra Vidarbha Irrigation Development Corporation (supra), it would have expressly done so. We therefore find that the argument of Ms. Bane is wholly misplaced and so is the reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Haryana State Industrial & Infrastructure Development Corporation Limited (supra). 22. As mentioned earlier, this point is squarely covered by the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Executive Engineer, Gosikhurd Project Ambadi, Bhandara, Maharashtra Vidarbha Irrigation Development Corporation (supra) which clearly stipulates that in cases falling under Section 24(1)(a) of the 2013 Act, the limitation period for passing an Award would commence from 1st January, 2014 and the same would have to be passed within a period of 12 months thereafter, subject to any stay being 9 granted by any Court. In other words, the period during which the stay was operating would have to be excluded for the purposes of calculating the period of 12 months. This has admittedly not been done in the present case. Therefore, on this count also, the entire acquisition proceedings are bad and the Awards passed pursuant thereto, are also unsustainable.” 14. The issue involved in this case has already been set at rest by the Hon’ble Supreme Court and therefore, this Court cannot take a different view in the case having similar issue to that of Haryana State Industrial and Infrastructure Development Corporation Limited case (supra) and The Executive Engineer, Gosikhurd Project Ambadi, Bhandara, Maharashtra Vidarbha Irrigation Development Corporation case (supra). The learned Single Judge has rightly considered Section 25 of the new Act of 2013 that if the award has not been passed within 12 months, the entire proceeding for acquisition of the land shall lapse and liberty was given to the respondents to draw fresh proceedings of land acquisition if they still require any land for public purpose and thus, even if the old land acquisition proceeding has been lapsed/quashed the respondents/State have every right to initiate fresh land acquisition proceeding under the new Act of 2013 if they still requires any land for public purpose.” 7. Taking into consideration the above-discussed facts and law laid down in the matter of Gaukaran (supra), the notifications issued under Sections 4 and 6 of the Act, 1894 and the award dated 25.04.2015 are hereby quashed pertaining to the petitioners. 8. The respondents would be at liberty to draw a fresh proceeding of land acquisition if they still require any land for public purposes according to provisions of the new Act of 2013. Accordingly, this petition is hereby allowed. Sd Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge $iddhant