-1- 2025:CGHC:7485 NAFR HIGH COURT of CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 3560 of 2019 Dilip Kumar Agrawal, S/o Shri Ramjilal Agrawal, Aged About 53 Years, R/o Village Gopalpur, Tahsil Himgiri, District Sundergarh, Odisha, District : Sundargarh, Orissa. ... Petitioner versus 1- State of Chhattisgarh, Through: The Secretary, Department of Revenue & Disaster Management, Ministry, Mahanadi Bhawan, Naya Raipur, PO & PS Rakhi, District Raipur Chhattisgarh. 2- District Collector Raigarh, District Raigarh, Chhattisgarh. 3- Sub-Divisional Officer, Revenue-Cum-Land Acquisition Officer, Raigarh, District Raigarh Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner : Mr. Tapan Chandra, Advocate, holding the brief of Mr. T. K. Jha, Advocate For State : Mr. Vedang Shadangi, Panel Lawyer Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 12.02.2025 1) The petitioner has filed this petition seeking the following relief(s):- “10.1. That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct difference amount of solatium with interest under Section 80 and 30 (3) of the Act, 2013. 10.2. That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly set-aside the award (Annexure P/1). Digitally signed by NADIM MOHLE -2- 10.3. Any other relief/order may also be granted that may be deemed fit and just in the facts and circumstances of the case.” 2) Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (for short, the Act, 2013), would come into force on 01.01.2014, whereas the award (Annexure P/1) was passed by the land acquisition officer on 06.05.2014, therefore, the award dated 06.05.2014 (Annexure P/1) may be set-aside and the respondent authorities may be directed to make payment of difference amount of solatium with interest according to the provisions of Section 80 and 30 (3) of the Act, 2013. 3) On the other hand, Mr. Vedang Shadangi, learned Panel Lawyer appearing for the State would oppose the submission made by Mr. Chandra. 4) Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents placed on file. 5) The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Indore Development Authority vs. Manoharlal & Ors. reported in (2020) 8 SCC 129, while dealing with the similar issue in para 363.3 held as under:- “366.3. The word "or" used in Section 24(2) between possession and compensation has to be read as "nor" or as "and". The deemed lapse of land acquisition proceedings under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act takes place where due to inaction of authorities for five years or more prior to commencement of the said Act, the possession of land has not been taken nor compensation has been paid. In other words, in case possession has been taken, compensation has not been paid then there is no lapse. Similarly, if compensation has been paid, possession has not been taken then there is no lapse.” 6) In the present case, the possession of the acquired property was taken over by the respondents, but award (Annexure P/1) was passed after 01.01.2014, i.e. on 06.05.2014 as possession was already handed over and the land acquisition proceedings concluded within a period of 1 year from 01.01.2014, in the opinion of this Court, the -3- provisions of the Act, 2013 would not attract. Accordingly, this petition fails and is hereby dismissed. However, the petitioner would be at liberty to take recourse to law claiming therein interest, if he is entitled. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge Nadim