1 2025:CGHC:8614 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 3027 of 2020 1 - Dinesh S/o Shri Kamta Singh Bisen, Aged About 46 Years R/o Village - Bhojpuri, P. H. No. 14, Tahsil - Bilha, District - Bilaspur Chhattisgarh. 2 - Smt. Vimla W/o Shri Kamta Singh Bisen, Aged About 69 Years R/o Village - Bhojpuri, P.H. No. 14, Tahsil - Bilha, District - Bilaspur Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioners versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh, Through Secretary, Department Of Town And Country Planning, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralay, Atal Nagar District - Raipur Chhattisgarh. 2 - The Collector, Bilaspur, District - Bilaspur Chhattisgarh. 3 - The Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue) Cum Land Acquisition Officer, Tahsil - Bilha, District - Bilaspur Chhattisgarh. 4 - The Tahsildar, Bilha, District - Bilaspur Chhattisgarh., District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. ---- Respondents For Petitioners : Shri Sanjay Agrawal, Advocate holding the brief of Ms. Sangeeta Mishra, Advocate. For Respondent/ State : Shri Shubham Bajpayee, P.L. Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 19.02.2025 1. The petitioners have filed this petition seeking the following relief(s):- “10.1. That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to call for the entire records of the petitioners from the Digitally signed by SMT NIRMALA RAO -2- respondents for the initiation of the land acquisition proceedings. 10.2 That, the Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue writ/ writs/ order/ direction to the respondent authorities to pay the interest of the award of compensation which has been awarded after lapse of 7 years from the date of taking the possession of the land of the petitioners in light of the Section 30 of Act, 2013, Section 34 of the Land Acquisition Act 1894 and the decision rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the matter of Union of India and another vs. Pushpavati & Others reported in (2018) 3 SCC 28. 10.3. That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to grant any other relief, as it may deem fit. 10.4. Cost of the petition may also be awarded.” 2. The facts of the present case, in a nutshell, are that the petitioners are the owners of Nazul land bearing survey No.228/5, situated at Village Bhojpuri, Tahsil Bilha, District Bilaspur. It is pleaded that the respondent authorities used 83,720 sq.ft. of land of the petitioners and 43,640 sq.ft. of government land for the construction of the National Highway. It is further pleaded that the respondents published notifications on 24.11.2010 and 22.7.2011 for the acquisition of the land for the construction of National Highway No.130. Respondent No.3 passed an award on 5.10.2012. It is pleaded that though objections were invited by respondent No.3 but objections raised by the petitioners were not decided. It is further stated that the respondent authorities failed to offer compensation for loss and damages. In paragraph 8.6, it is pleaded that the Circle Patwari prepared a spot investigation report, wherein it was stated that the land of the petitioners had 3 been used for the construction of the Highway. It is also stated that respondent No.3 assessed compensation for damages and deposited it in the year 2012. It is further pleaded that the supplementary award was passed on 2.11.2017, whereas possession of the land was taken over in the year 2012 itself; thus, the act and conduct of the respondent authorities are arbitrary, illegal and contrary to the provisions of Section 30 of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (for short ‘the Act, 2013’). 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the Land Acquisition Officer committed an error of law in not awarding solatium according to Section 30 of the Act, 2013. He would further submit that the award was passed by the Land Acquisition Officer on 05.10.2012, therefore, there was no reason or occasion for the said authority to pass a supplementary award in the year 2017. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the State would oppose the submissions made by counsel for the petitioners. He would submit that the land bearing Survey No.228/5 was government land and the petitioners are not the owners of the said land. He would contend that the petitioners had raised the construction over the government land and they have already been compensated. He would further submit that petitioner No.1/ Dinesh Singh was awarded compensation of Rs.24,974/- on 28.3.2013 against the construction of a wall and structure. He would also contend that the compensation of Rs.8,37,045/- was awarded in favour of petitioner No.1 through the supplementary award dated -4- 2.11.2017 whereas, petitioner No.2/Smt. Vimla Bisen was awarded compensation of Rs.7,07,164/- and they have already accepted the compensation. He would argue that the award was passed in accordance with the provisions of the National Highways Act, 1956 but the petitioners have not arrayed the National Highways Authority of India as a respondent party. He would state that the facts of the case of Union of India & Another vs. Pushpavati & Others, reported in (2018) 3 SCC 28, are different from the facts of the case in hand. In the cited case, the land oustees were the owners of the land, whereas in the present petition, the petitioners have raised the construction over the government land and they have already been compensated pursuant to the agreement entered into between the parties. He would also argue that the petitioners are not entitled to the grant of interest. He would pray that the petition deserves to be dismissed. 5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents present on the record. 6. The order dated 5.10.2012 (Annexure-P/1) would show that the compensation was awarded to the petitioners against the construction raised over the government land. The government land, which was in the possession of the petitioners, was used for the construction of the National Highway and appropriate compensation has already been paid and the petitioners have accepted it without demur. The petitioners have not submitted any document to demonstrate that survey No.228/5 was recorded in their names in the revenue records. It is a well-settled principle of law that to claim compensation for the acquisition of land, the land 5 oustee has to establish his right over the property. In the present case, initially, petitioner No.1 was awarded Rs.24,974/- vide award dated 05.10.2012, and again, compensation of Rs.8,37,045/- was awarded vide award dated 2.11.2017. Petitioner No.2 has also been given compensation to the tune of Rs.7,07,164/-. The land was used for the construction of the Highway in the year 2012 itself, thereafter the award was passed, and the petitioners filed this petition in the year 2020. They have already accepted the compensation pursuant to the award dated 2.11.2017. With regard to the claim of interest on the amount of compensation, the petitioners may avail the remedy available under the National Highways Act before the appropriate authority. 7. Therefore, I do not find any good ground to entertain this petition. Consequently, this petition fails and is hereby dismissed. No cost(s). Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge Nimmi