1 2025:CGHC:33927-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WA No. 484 of 2025 Premchand Vaidya S/o Late Shri Jaichand Vaidya, Aged About 83 Years R/o Ward No. 32 Narmada Nagar, Behind T.V.S Showroom, Balaghat M.P., Presently R/o House No. 264, Ward No. 28, Sneh Nagar, Balaghat, Distt. Balaghat, M.P. Through Power Of Attorney Holder, Sandeep Vaidya, Aged About 58 Years, S/o Premchand Vaidya, R/o Block No. 14, Akaltara House, Ward No. 42, Opposite CG Club, Civil Lines, Raipur District Raipur C.G. ... Appellant versus 1 - The State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Nagriya Prashasan Avam Vikas Vibhag, Mantralaya, Raipur, C.G. 2 - Municipal Corporation Through Its Commissioner, Rajnandgaon, C.G. ... Respondents For Appellants : Mr.Parag Kotecha, Advocate For Respondent No.1/State For Respondent No.2 : : Mr.Sanghrash Pandey, Government Advocate Mr.Sourabh Sahrma, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru , Judge Judgment on Board BABLU RAJENDRA BHANARKAR Digitally signed by BABLU RAJENDRA BHANARKAR Date: 2025.07.18 18:46:08 +0530 2 Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice 18.07.2025 1. Heard Mr.Parag Kotecha, learned counsel for the appellant as well as Mr.Sanghrash Pandey, learned Government Advocate appearing for respondent No.1/State and Mr.Sourabh Sharma, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2. 2. This writ appeal is presented against the order dated 30.04.2025 passed by learned Single Judge in WPC No.1686 of 2013, whereby the writ petition filed by appellant herein was partly allowed by learned Single Judge. 3. The facts of the case are that the writ petitioner, a registered colonizer, developed two colonies in Rajnandgaon, one at Keshar Nagar Lakholi comprising Survey Nos. 301, 302/1-2, 303/1-2, 305/5, 334/1-5, 334/6, 334/7-2, and 334/5 with a total area of 8.06 acres, and another at Kanchan Bagh Lakholi consisting of Survey Nos. 284/1, 284/2, 285, 311/5, 311/7, 312/1-2, 313/4, 314/1, 317/2, 319/3, 320, 321/1-2, 322/1-2, 323/1-2, 325/1-2-3, 357/1-3- 5, 357, and 360 with a total area of 14.98 acres wherein 15% of the developed land, i.e., 3.35 acres were reserved for Economically Weaker Sections. The writ petitioner was required to reserve 15% of land for weaker sections of the society according to the provisions of Chhattisgarh Vinirdisht Bhrasht Acharan Nivaran (Grant of Certificate to Prospective Consumers), Rules, 1991 (for short, the Rules, 1991) and Chhattigsarh Vinirdishta 3 Bhrashta Acharan Nivaran Adhiniyam, 1982 (for short, the Act, 1982). A licence was issued to the writ petitioner according to the above stated Act & Rules which specifically provided that colonizers/developers has to reserve 15 % of land. The petitioner reserved 3.456 acre of land out of 23.04 acre. 4. It is further case of the writ petitioner that lands were purchased by the writ petitioner in the year 1982, whereas possession was taken by respondent No. 2 for the benefit of economically weaker sections on 1.6.1997 and 12.7.1997 respectively according to one of the conditions of the License issued to the writ petitioner. It is also pleaded that the Municipal Corporation has assessed the amount of compensation payable to Colonizer according to the market value prevailing in the year 1982. Part compensation was paid by the Municipal Corporation to the writ petitioner on 11.7/2013, vide Cheque No. 071548 for a meager sum of Rs. 1,35,296/- according to the market value of the property prevailing in the year 1982, which was accepted by the writ petitioner under protest reserving his right to seek fair compensation. Further compensation was paid to the writ petitioner to the tune of Rs. 6,143/- on the same date. Upon obtaining the internal note sheets and calculations through the Right to Information Act, it became evident that the amount was calculated without any legal basis or adherence to rules, thereafter, the writ petitioner again requested the authorities for compensation at the market value of Rs. 450 per square feet as assessed by the District Valuation Committee 4 for the year 2013–14. A legal notice was issued on 16.8.2013 claiming therein compensation for the entire land of 3.35 acres at the rate of Rs. 450 per square ft. along with 12% annual interest (Annexure P/5), but the respondents failed to take any action, thus the petition has been preferred by the writ petitioner for the payment of appropriate compensation. It is stated that various representations were made before respondent No.2 for payment of compensation and finally an application under Section 387 of the Municipal Corporation Act was moved before the learned District Judge, Rajanandgaon, which was rejected vide order dated 18.02.2008. A Civil Suit No.117A/2005 claiming therein compensation before the competent Civil Court and it was withdrawn on 2.09.2006. In writ petition, the writ petitioner has prayed for release/return of subject land or make payment of compensation at the rate of Rs.450/- per squire feet, which was partly allowed by learned Single Judge by the impugned order. Hence, this writ appeal. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the respondents' failure to pay adequate compensation for 3.35 acres of EWS land or to return the land to the appellant is arbitrary, illegal, and violative of Article 300A of the Constitution of India, which mandates that deprivation of property must be accompanied by just and equitable compensation. The respondents' actions constitute an unconstitutional deprivation, as the appellant has been denied both possession and fair compensation for over 28 5 years, causing irreparable financial harm. He further submits that the respondents' conduct is deliberately unfair and discriminatory, in not compensating the appellant at the market value, in defiance of statutory obligations and principles of natural justice. This discriminatory treatment has resulted in undue hardship and financial prejudice to the appellant, warranting judicial intervention. The respondents' refusal to provide either remedy constitutes a breach of statutory duty and deprives the appellant of his lawful rights. He also submits that respondent No.2's persistent refusal to return the land or pay fair compensation, despite the appellant’s readiness to deposit shelter fees, demonstrates mala fide intent and an attempt to frustrate the legislative purpose of the EWS reservation, which was intended to balance public welfare with the rights of colonizers. He contended that the compensation paid by respondent No. 2, amounting to Rs. 1,35,296/- for 0.62 acres of the Economically Weaker Section (EWS) land in Kanchan Bagh and Rs. 6,143/- for Keshar Nagar (Not Received), is grossly inadequate and legally unsustainable, as it is calculated based on the 1982 purchase price of the land rather than the market value prevailing at the time of possession in 1997 or at the time of payment in 2013. This approach is contrary to established principles of land acquisition law, as reinforced by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Bernard Francis Joseph Vaz and Others v. Government of Karnataka and Others, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 20, wherein the Supreme Court 6 held that compensation must reflect the market value at the time of acquisition or the date of the award, particularly in cases of prolonged delay, to ensure just and fair compensation to landowners. In the cited case, the appellants, who had not received compensation for over 21 years since the preliminary notification, were entitled to a fresh award based on the market value prevailing at the time of the award, underscoring the principle that delays in payment cannot justify reliance on outdated valuations. Similarly, in the present case, the respondents' reliance on the 1982 purchase price, despite taking possession in 1997 and delaying payment until 2013, violates the petitioner's constitutional right to just compensation under Article 300A of the Constitution of India. The appellant accepted the meager payment under protest, reserving the right to claim compensation at the market value, which was assessed by the District Valuation Committee, Rajnandgaon, at Rs. 5,000/- per square meter (approximately Rs. 450/- per square foot) for 2013- 14 (Annexure P/4 of the original petition). The respondents' arbitrary calculation, as revealed through documents obtained under the Right to Information Act (Annexure P/3 of the original petition), lacks any legal basis and fails to account for the significant appreciation in land value over the 16-year delay, resulting in substantial financial prejudice to the petitioner. The Hon'ble Supreme Court's ruling in Bernard Francis Joseph Vaz (supra) further emphasizes that in cases of prolonged delay, the 7 date for determining market value may be adjusted to the date of possession or payment to avoid injustice, thereby supporting the petitioner's claim for compensation at the 2013 market value. He further contended that the respondents' delay of over 16 years in making partial payment has resulted in significant financial prejudice to the petitioner, as the land value has appreciated substantially, constituting unjust enrichment by Respondent No. 2, which has retained possession without fulfilling its legal obligations. This delay violates the principles of equity and fairness, as the appellant has been deprived of the economic benefits of the land for nearly three decades. Learned Single Judge while granting partial relief in the form of 8% interest and balance compensation, is inadequate and fails to address the core issue of fair compensation. Learned Single Judge’s reliance on the District Judge's erroneous order dated February 18, 2008, which incorrectly assessed compensation based on the 1982 purchase price, perpetuates an injustice that must be rectified by this Court. The District Judge's order dated February 18, 2008, was legally flawed, as it failed to consider the market value at the time of possession or payment, contrary to the principles of just compensation under land acquisition laws and Article 300A of the Constitution of India. Further it was only an observation and was not the order or direction, which had no binding effect nor the appellant cannot be estopped for claiming just and fair compensation in accordance with law. That it is well settle law that 8 there is no estoppel against the statute. (2022) 19 SCC 388, State of West Bengal Vs Gitashree Dutta (Dey). He also contended that the appellant has suffered immense financial loss and mental agony due to the respondents' protracted delay and failure to act in accordance with the law, necessitating comprehensive relief to restore the appellant’s rights and compensate for the prolonged deprivation. As such, the writ appeal deserves to be allowed and the impugned judgment deserves to be set aside / quashed. 6. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2 opposes the submissions made by learned counsel for the appellant and submits that learned Single Judge after considering all the aspects of the matter has partly allowed the writ petition filed by the writ petitioner / appellant herein, in which no interference is called for. 7. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned order and other documents appended with writ appeal. 8. From perusal of the impugned order, it transpires that learned Single Judge has observed that the appellant developed two colonies in the year 1997; 15% land was reserved for Economically Weaker Sections; respondent no. 2 assessed the compensation according to the purchase value and part of compensation has already been paid. The claim of the appellant with regard to compensation as per the current market value or 9 Rs. 450 per square feet cannot be considered as the issue has already been resolved by the learned District Judge while deciding the application moved under 387 of Municipal Corporation Act vide order dated 18.2.2008 and the said order has not been challenged by the appellant before higher forum thus it attained finality. The appellant also withdrew the civil suit filed before the learned Civil Court. However, sight cannot be lost to the fact that 15% of land of the appellant was acquired for EWS in the year 1997, thus the appellant was entitled to receive compensation in that year but part payment was made in the year 2013 by respondent No. 2, therefore the appellant is entitled to receive compensation along with interest. The amount of compensation already paid and remaining to be paid by the Municipal Corporation shall carry interest at the rate of 8% per annum from the date of handing over possession until its realization. Learned Single Judge directed respondent No.2/Municipal Corporation, Rajnandgaon to make payment of interest on the delayed payment of compensation and the balance compensation with interest to the appellant expeditiously, preferably within a period of 90 days. 9. As such, the judgment relied upon by learned counsel for the appellant i.e.,Bernard Francis Joseph Vaz (supra) is distinguishable to the facts of the present case as the present case pertains to compensation and the judgment relied upon pertains to land acquisition. 10 10. Considering the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties, perusing the documents appended with writ appeal as also with writ petition and also considering the finding recorded by learned Single Judge while partly allowing the writ petition filed by the writ petitioner / appellant herein, 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