2025:CGHC:2210 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 4066 of 2021 1 - Ashwani Bandhe S/o Late Shri Mohan Lal Bandhe Aged About 48 Years R/o Vill.- Barouda, Post - Mana Camp, Tah. Aarang, Distt.- Raipur (Chhattisgarh), District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through - Secretary Public Welfare Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, New Raipur, Raipur (Chhattisgarh), District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - Executive Engineer Public Welfare Department, Division No. 1, Raipur, Tah. And Distt.- Raipur (Chhattisgarh) 3 - Collector Raipur, Tah. And Distt.- Raipur (Chhattisgarh) 4 - Land Acquisition Officer / Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue) Raipur, Distt.- Raipur (Chhattisgarh) ---- Respondents For Petitioner : Mr. Ravindra Sharma, Advocate For State : Mr. Shubham Bajpayee, Panel Lawyer Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 14.01.2025 1. The petitioner has filed this petition seeking the following relief(s):- “10.1 That this Hon'ble court may kindly be pleased to Digitally signed by REKHA SINGH -2- issue a writ of MANDAMUS for directing the respondents to consider the representation/ application of the petitioner with regard to the compensations. 10.2 That this Hon'ble court may kindly be pleased to issue any writ or direction or order as deem fit in the interest of justice.” 2. Mr. Sharma, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner purchased Survey No.271/1 area admeasuring 0.178 hectare through the registered sale deed dated 04.09.2019 from one Phool Singh. He would further submit that the total area of Survey No.271 was 0.356 hectare. He would contend that there was some dispute with regard to boundaries, therefore, the petitioner moved an application for demarcation and it was found that as per the demarcation report, 858 sq.meter land was acquired out of the purchased land for the construction of a road. He would also submit that out of 0.178 hect. of land purchased by the petitioner, only 922 sq.meter is left and the rest of the land has already been acquired for the construction of a road. He would further contend that no acquisition proceeding was initiated and no compensation has been paid to the petitioner. He would pray to direct the respondent authorities to initiate a proceeding for land acquisition and to make payment of proper compensation. 3. On the other hand, Mr. Bajpayee, the learned Panel Lawyer appearing for the State would oppose the submissions made by Mr. Sharma. He would submit that the land acquisition proceeding for the construction of a road was initiated in the year 1975-76. He would further submit that in that proceeding, compensation of Rs.1524.68 was paid to the original owner namely, Phool Singh. He would contend that the petitioner purchased the property in the year 2019 whereas the acquisition proceedings culminated in the year 1975-76. He would further contend that the petitioner with open eyes purchased the land in the year 2019 whereas he ought to have inquired about the position and area of the land. He would lastly submit that the present petition deserves to be dismissed. In the rejoinder, Mr. Sharma would submit that he has filed the entire acquisition proceedings which would show that Survey No.271 was never acquired and no proceeding was initiated. He would contend that even after acquisition, the entire property was recorded in the name of Phool Singh, therefore, the petitioner purchased it through a registered sale deed. He would argue that with regard to Survey No.271, there is no land acquisition proceeding and no opportunity of hearing was afforded to the original owner namely, Phool Singh. 4. Heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the documents placed on the record. 5. The original owner of Survey No.271 measuring 0.356 hect. was Phool Singh. He sold his property in parts. One part admeasuring 0.178 hect. was purchased by the petitioner through a registered sale deed on 04.09.2019. The petitioner moved an application for demarcation wherein he found that an area of 858 sq.meter has -4- already been used for the construction of a road. The documents filed along with the return would reveal that the land acquisition proceeding was initiated by the respondent authorities and compensation of Rs.1524.68 was paid to the original owner/Phool Singh in the year 1975-76. 6. As the acquisition proceeding was completed in the year 1975-76 and Phool Singh was paid compensation, therefore, in the opinion of this Court, the aggrieved party may be Phool Singh and not the present petitioner. 7. Section 55 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 (for short ‘the Act of 1882’) deals with the rights and liabilities of buyer and seller. It reads as under:- “55. 6. As the acquisition proceeding was completed in the year 1975-76 and Phool Singh was paid compensation, therefore, in the opinion of this Court, the aggrieved party may be Phool Singh and not the present petitioner. 7. Section 55 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 (for short ‘the Act of 1882’) deals with the rights and liabilities of buyer and seller. It reads as under:- “55. Rights and liabilities of buyer and seller.—In the absence of a contract to the contrary, the buyer and the seller of immoveable property respectively are subject to the liabilities, and have the rights, mentioned in the rules next following, or such of them as are applicable to the property sold:— (1)The seller is bound— (a)to disclose to the buyer any material defect in the property or in the seller’s title thereto of which the seller is, and the buyer is not, aware, and which the buyer could not with ordinary care discover; (b)to produce to the buyer on his request for examination all documents of title relating to the property which are in the seller’s possession or power; (c)to answer to the best of his information all relevant questions put to him by the buyer in respect to the property or the title thereto; (d)on payment or tender of the amount due in respect of the price, to execute a proper conveyance of the property when the buyer tenders it to him for execution at a proper time and place; (e)between the date of the contract of sale and the delivery of the property, to take as much care of the property and all documents of title relating thereto which are in his possession as an owner of ordinary prudence would take of such property and documents; (f)to give, on being so required, the buyer, or such person as he directs, such possession of the property as its nature admits; (g)to pay all public charges and rent accrued due in respect of the property up to the date of the sale, the interest on all encumbrances on such property due on such date, and, except where the property is sold subject to encumbrances, to discharge all encumbrances on the property then existing.” 8. The petitioner ought to have inquired about the position and status of the property before purchasing it. As the land was already acquired and compensation was paid prior to 04.09.2019, the petitioner has no right to claim compensation again. The petitioner should have claimed compensation from the original owner of the property i.e. Phool Singh and this petition against the State is not maintainable. 9. Having considered the facts discussed-above, in the opinion of this Court, no case is made out for interference. Consequently, the present petition fails and is hereby dismissed. No cost(s). Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge Rekha