1 2025:CGHC:22669 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR FAM No. 17 of 2014 1 - Raghuraj Singh S/o Late Digvijay Singh Aged About 55 Years R/o Podishankar, P.S. And Tah. Champa, Distt. Janjgir-Champa C.G., Chhattisgarh ... Appellant versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh S/o Thru- The Collector, Janjgir-Champa C.G., Chhattisgarh 2 - Executive Engineer Minimata Bango Canal Division No. 2, Water Resources Department, Champa, Tah. Champa, Distt. Janjgir-Champa C.G., District : Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh 3 - Land Acquisition Officer Hasdeo Project, Janjgir, Distt. Janjgir-Champa C.G., District : Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh ... Respondents For appellant : Mr. H.V. Sharma, Advocate. For Respondents : Mr. Ritesh Giri, Panel Lawyer. Hon’ble Mr. Justice Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi Order on Board 09/06/2025 1. This appeal has been preferred by the appellant under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (henceforth, ‘Act, 1894’) challenging the impugned award dated 20.01.2014 passed by First Upper District Judge, 2 Janjgir, District Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) in C.M.J.C. Case No. 14/2008 (Raghuraj Singh vs. State of Chhattisgarh & others) whereby reference application preferred by the appellant for enhancement of amount under award has been dismissed. 2. Facts of the case, as projected by the appellant, is that out of the Land bearing Khasra No. 1210/1 & 1210/2, total area 11.99 acres owned by appellant, 2.02 acres of land was acquired for construction of “Canal” and in lieu thereof, Land Acquisition Officer, Janjgir, District Janjgir-Champa vide award 28.02.2003 finding it to be un-irrigated land, awarded compensation @ Rs.84,000/- per acre was given to the appellant. 3. Being aggrieved & dissatisfied with the same, appellant preferred reference application before the concerned Collector, who made reference to District Court, thereafter, First Upper District Judge, Janjgir, District Janjgir- Champa vide impugned order dated 20.1.2014 (Annexure A-3) dismissed the reference application filed by the appellant / claimant. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant would submit that Land owned by the appellant, which was acquired by the respondent authorities for construction of ‘Canal’ was double cropped land, same was irrigated also by Well (dqWavk) and the said land has also been fenced with barbed wire. It is further contended that the said Land was situated 25 feet away from the Podishankar to Lakhur main Road, despite all these facts, amount of compensation has been calculated for the said acquired land treating it to be only un-irrigated agricultural land whereas from 1977 to 1979, the Lands owned by other persons situated at village Pondishankar has been acquired by the Irrigation Department by giving them higher amount of compensation than the present appellant. He further submits that aforesaid fact has been 3 proved by the appellant / claimant by filing oral and documentary evidence, despite that learned Reference Court has rejected the reference application filed by the appellant vide impugned order dated 20.01.2014 whereas vide earlier order dated 5.11.2008 (Annexure A-2), it had enhanced the amount of compensation, which was subsequently set aside by the High Court and the matter was remitted back to the Reference Court for re-determination of the compensation, therefore, he prayed that amount of compensation may be enhanced suitably. 5. Per contra, learned counsel for the State / respondents would submit that earlier vide order dated 5.11.2008, learned Reference Court had enhanced amount of compensation without any appropriate reason and evidence, therefore, in appeal filed by the State, High Court set aside the order dated 5.11.2008 and the matter was remitted to the First Upper District Judge, Janjgir, District Janjgir-Champa. He further submits that in second occasion, learned Reference Court after considering evidence in its true perspective, has dismissed the reference application filed by the appellant, which does not call for any interference. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 7. It is claim of the appellant that his land, which was acquired for construction of ‘Canal’ in the year 2003, was irrigated land which was being irrigated through well and hence double crop was being obtained on it. It is further claim of the appellant that said land was 25 feet away from Pondishankar to Lakhurri main road. This fact has further been stated by appellant – Raghuraj Singh (AW-1) and his witness Sunil Kumar (AW-2). Ashok Singh, who was Patwari of village Podishankar, has also supported the 4 said fact up to some extent, but copy of revenue documents filed by the appellant i.e. Khasra, Form B-1, Nazri Naksha and other revenue documents right from Ex.P-1 to Ex.P-18 do not contain the fact that said land was ‘irrigated land’ and any Well (dqWavk) or other means of irrigation was situated over it. The appellant has also not filed any revenue map to prove the aforesaid fact. Though he has filed Nazri Naksha pertaining to the said land, but those documents are not valid document to demonstrate the status or position of the said land. 8. Ashok Singh, who is Patwari of village Pondishankar, has supported the statement of the appellant, but in cross-examination, he could not have explained that since when said tubewell (uydwi ) was installed in the said land and since when the land was encircled through barbed wire. His statement is found to be clingy, as despite being Patwari, his statement does not get support from revenue documents. 9. On being perusal of evidence available on record, except from verbal contention, there is no substantive evidence on record to support the case of the appellant that his land, which was acquired for construction of canal, is irrigated land or is adjacent to the Pondishankar to Lakhurri main road. 10. In view of the foregoing discussion, I do not find any good ground to interfere with the impugned award dated 20.01.2024 passed by First Upper District Judge, Janjgir, District Janjgir-Champa. 11. Accordingly, the first appeal (M) fails and is hereby dismissed. No cost (s). Sd/- (Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi) JUDGE AMIT KUMAR DUBEY Digitally signed by AMIT KUMAR DUBEY Date: 2025.06.11 11:47:41 +0530 5