1 / 6 2025:CGHC:36456 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR WPC No. 3915 of 2025 Purupshottam Das Daga S/o Late Bansidhar Daga Aged About 77 Years R/o Daga Bhavan, Near Jagannath Mandir, Gudhiyari, Raipur, C.G. ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through The Additional Chief Secretary, Revenue And Disaster Management Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, Naya Raipur, Atal Nagar, Raipur, C.G. 2 - Collector District Raipur, Collectorate Complex, Ghadi Chowk, Raipur, C.G. 3 - Land Acquisition And Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue) Tehsil Office, Ghadi Chowk, Raipur, C.G. ---- Respondents For Petitioner : Ms. Arya Shrivastava, Advocate For State/Respondents : Mr. Rishabh Bisen, PL Hon'ble Shri Justice Arvind Kumar Verma Order on Board 28/07/2025 VASANT KUMAR Digitally signed by VASANT KUMAR Date: 2025.07.28 17:45:05 +0530 2 / 6 Heard. 1. The petitioner has been filed this writ petition on the following relief(s) : “1. Quash and set aside the impugned order dated 25.04.2025 passed by respondent no. 3 (Annexure P/1). 2. Direct the respondents to compute and pay interest on the delayed compensation amount as per Section 34 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 within a time- bound period. 3. That, the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to call the entire record of the concerned matter. 4. That this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to give any other Consequential relief as it deems fit, in the interest of justice.” 2. Counsel for the petitioner contended that the present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging the legality of the order dated 25.04.2025 passed by the respondent authority, whereby the petitioner's representation seeking interest under Section 34 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 was arbitrarily rejected. The petitioner is a rightful titleholder of land bearing Khasra No. 1152/1D, admeasuring 100.12 sq. m., situated in Village Gudhiyari, Raipur. The aforementioned land was compulsorily acquired by the Public Works Department for the Gudhiyari under-bridge approach road under Land Acquisition Case No. 17/A-82/2007-08. Though 80% of the compensation was disbursed to the petitioner on 03.12.2008, the 3 / 6 remaining amount was unlawfully withheld due to a title dispute. The same was finally adjudicated upon by the 4th Additional District Judge, Raipur vide order dated 31.01.2020 in favour of the petitioner. However, despite this delay of over 11 years, the statutory interest mandated under Section 34 has not been paid to the petitioner, leading to gross injustice. She further contended that the earlier two petitions were filed by the petitioner before this Court bearing WPC No.318 of 2025 in which direction given by this Court as under :- “5. In view of the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and State counsel, the Collector, Raipur shall decide the application pending before him, which has been filed by the petitioner. The petitioner is directed to submit a fresh representation reiterating the fact narrated in Annexure P/1, which has been filed by the petitioner herein in the writ petition within a period of 15 days and if the petitioner will file the said representation before the Collector, the Collector Raipur is directed to verify the fact narrated by the petitioner and pass a detail order regarding the interest which is being claimed by the petitioner on the award amount pursuance to award dated 15.03.2010. The Collector shall decide the said within a period of 2 months from today.” 3. In WPC No.3613 of 2024, direction was given by this Court that: “5. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, submission of the counsel for the respective parties, nature of grievance raised, further that the representation is already submitted by the petitioner before the Respondent No. 2/Collector and is stated to be Cpending consideration, without commenting on the merits of the claim of the petitioner, 4 / 6 I am inclined to dispose of this writ petition, directing the art of Chhattingarh No. 2 to take decision on the pending representation submitted by the petitioner at the earliest, preferably within a period of 03 from the date of receipt of the order. 4. She further contended that vide order dated 25.04.2025, the SDO (R), Raipur has rejected the application/representation of the petitioner and ordered that the reference Court, i.e., District Judge/Additional District Judge passed an order to pay compensation in favor of the petitioner. In the said order, the remaining amount was clearly mentioned and the order for payment was made, no order was given in the order to provide interest under Section 34 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. Since there has been no delay by the Land Acquisition Officer or the Department in paying the compensation amount to the petitioner, the petitioner is not entitled to interest under Section 34 of the Act, 1894. 5. Reliance has been placed in the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the matter of Union of India & Another Vs. Dr. Asket Singh & Ors. (Civil Appeal No.1636-1637 of 2016; decided on 01.05.2024) and held as under : "Once possession is taken, and the compensation is not paid in full, the landowner is entitled as a matter of law to interest under Section 34, irrespective of whether the Reference Court has opined upon it or not. The Collector cannot take refuge in the silence of the Reference Court when the statute itself mandates payment of interest." 5 / 6 6. Counsel for the State contended that the alternate remedy is available to the petitioner to file the appeal before the concerned Collector, therefore, this petition is not maintainable. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record with utmost circumspection. 8. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and submission made by learned counsel for the parties. On perusal of the principle of law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, it is crystal clear that once possession is taken by the Government agency as a matter of law to interest under Section 34 of the Act, 1894 would be applicable, irrespective of whether the Reference Court has opined upon it or not. 9. Looking to the fact that there is alternative remedy is available to the petitioner to file appeal before the concerned Collector against the order passed by the SDO (R), at this stage the instant petition is disposed of with direction to the petitioner that he may file appeal before the concerned Collector within ‘15 day’ from today and in-turn the Collector shall consider and decide the said appeal of the petitioner, expeditiously preferably within an outer limit of ‘90 day’ as per rules, regulations & law and in the light of law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Union of India & Another Vs. Dr. Asket Singh & Ors. (supra). 6 / 6 10.With the aforesaid observations and directions, the instant petition is disposed of. Sd/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) Judge Vasant