1 2025:CGHC:32916 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 2860 of 2019 1 - Ambika Prasad Verma S/o Shri Chootelal Verma Aged About 36 Years R/o Village Jaitgiri, Tahsil And Tahsil Bakawand, District Bastar Chhattisgarh., District : Bastar(Jagdalpur), Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Public Works Department, (B/r), Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Naya Raipur, Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - Collector Jagdalpur, District Bastar Chhattisgarh., District : Bastar(Jagdalpur), Chhattisgarh 3 - Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue) Bastar District Bastar Chhattisgarh., District : Bastar(Jagdalpur), Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner : Shri Anukul Biswas, Advocate. For Respondents/State : Shri Vedant Shadangi, P.L. Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 15.07.2025 1. The petitioner has filed this petition seeking the following reliefs:- SMT NIRMALA RAO 2 “(i) That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash impugned order Annexure P-1 and P-2, in the interest of justice. (ii) That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent authorities to grant adequate compensation to the petitioner with interest, in the interest of justice. (iii) Any other relief which may be suitable in the facts and circumstances of the case, may also be granted.” 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the lease of land bearing Survey No.147/1, admeasuring 4.96 acres, situated at Village Giroula, Patwari Halka No.10, Tahsil Bakawand, District Bastar, Chhattisgarh, was granted to the mother of the petitioner vide order dated 1.11.1986. He would contend that the land of the mother of the petitioner was acquired by the respondent authorities and a notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short ‘the Act, 1984’) was issued on 4.9.1992. He would contend that an award was passed on 5.1.1993, wherein the name of the mother of the petitioner was present at Sr. No.24 along with the description of the land. He would further contend that without affording any opportunity of hearing and without holding any enquiry, the lease granted to the mother of the petitioner was cancelled by the respondent authorities on 30.8.1993. He would further submit that the mother of the petitioner died on 18.9.1992, prior to the passing of the award. He would also contend that the petitioner is entitled to receive the amount of compensation since the land was acquired before the cancellation of the lease, and the award was passed thereafter. 3. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State would submit that the lease granted to the mother of the petitioner pertaining to Survey No. 3 147/1 by the Competent Authority on 1.11.1986 was in contravention of the applicable laws and rules, and therefore was canceled by the Competent Authority on 30.8.1993. He would further submit that though the name of the mother of the petitioner is mentioned in the award dated 5.1.1993, the compensation has not been paid due to the cancellation of the lease. He would contend that the petitioner has not challenged the cancellation order dated 30.8.1993, whereas a show- cause notice was issued to the petitioner prior to the decision. He would submit that the petition deserves to be dismissed. 4. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents present on the record. 5. Article 300A of the Constitution of India provides that no person shall be deprived of his property except by authority of law. A lease pertaining to Survey No. 147/1 was granted in favour of the mother of the petitioner on 1.11.1986. Subsequently, a notification under Section 4 of the Act, 1894, was issued and later on, the award was passed. The name of the mother of the petitioner was present at Sr. No.24. The decision with regard to the cancellation of the lease was taken on 30.8.1993 after the passing of the award. The respondents in their return have not explained the reasons for the cancellation of the lease granted to the mother of the petitioner. As no opportunity of hearing was afforded to the petitioner or his mother, non-challenge of the cancellation of the lease deed would not be fatal to the petitioner. Furthermore, a show- cause notice was issued to the father of the petitioner after the death of Smt. Chandrika Bai. Since the lease deed was issued in favour of Smt. Chandrika Bai, there was no occasion for the respondents to issue a show cause notice to the husband of Smt. Chandrika Bai. 4 6. Taking into consideration the above-discussed facts, the petition is disposed of reserving liberty in favour of the petitioner to make a detailed representation before respondents No. 2 and 3, and in turn, respondents No.2 & 3 are directed to consider the representation of the petitioner in an objective manner, preferably within a period of four months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 7. With the aforesaid direction(s), the petition is disposed of. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge Nimmi