1 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 4477 of 2022 Order Reserved on: 05.05.2025 Order Delivered on: 23.07.2025 1 - Chetan Kumar @ Chaitanya S/o Dedrag Aged About 67 Years R/o Village Chandrapur Nagar, Panchayat Chandrapur, District Janjgir Champa Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Department Of Revenue, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh. 2 - Collector Janjgir, District Janjgir Champa Chhattisgarh. 3 - Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue) Cum Land Acquisition Officer, Dabhra, District Janjgir Champa Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Vivek Mishra, Advocate. For Respondent(s)/ State : Mr. Santosh Bharat, Panel Lawyer. 2 Hon’ble Mr. Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad C A V Order 1. By way of this petition, the petitioner has prayed for following reliefs:- “1) That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue a writ/writs, order/orders, direction/directions and the impugned order dated 29.09.2022 passed by Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue), Cum Land Acquisition Officer, Dabhra Respondent No.3 (Annex.P/1), may kindly be set aside and the authorities may kindly be directed to grant the enhanced compensation amount alongwith the interest and all other benefits attached therewith to the petitioner following the judgment of Hon'ble Division of this Court passed in WA No.7/2019, in the interest of justice. 2) That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to grant any other relief(s), which is deemed fit and proper in the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case.” 2. The petitioner has filed this petition challenging the order dated 29.09.2022 passed by Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue)-cum- Land Acquisition Officer, Dabhra has dismissed his application under Section 33 of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and 3 Resettlement Act, 2013 preferred by the petitioner on the ground that the award was passed on 22.11.2018 and the petitioner has moved an application for correction after lapse of six months as provided under Section 33 (1) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013. Since, the petitioner is entitled for the enhanced award as such the delay would not come into the way and the authorities have committed an illegality while passing such an order. 3. It was the case of the petitioner that upon acquisition of land of the petitioner and award dated 22.11.2018 has been passed. Since the petitioner was dissatisfied with the award passed by the Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue)-cum-Land Acquisition Officer, Dabhra. He has moved an application under Section 33 of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, however, the concerned Land Acquisition Officer has rejected the application in an illegal manner while holding that it is barred by time as stated under Section 33 (1) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that as per order passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Dheeraj 4 Singh (dead) through legal representative and others vs. State of Haryana and others reported in 2014 (14) SCC 127. The right of the person whose land has been acquired cannot be curtailed by taking recourse of technicalities. If the compensation has not been granted properly only on the basis of delay in filing the application the correction in respect of amount of the award cannot be denied. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State submits that where there is specific provisions under Section 33 (1) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 giving a prescribed period for filing an application, it cannot be allowed because there is specific provisions in respect of limitation which cannot be ignored in this case as such there is no merit in the petition and the same is liable to be dismissed. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 7. From the perusal of the record and from the perusal of impugned award it seems that the award was passed way back on 22.11.2018, however, the application under Section 33 of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 was filed 5 only on 28.10.2021 where as it has to be filed within 6 months from the date of award. 8. Section 33 of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 is held as under:- “33. Corrections to awards by Collector.(1) The Collector may at any time, but not later than six months from the date of award or where he has been required under the provisions of this Act to make a reference to the Authority under section 64, before the making of such reference, by order, correct any clerical or arithmetical mistakes in either of the awards or errors arising therein either on his own motion or on the application of any person interested or local authority: Provided that no correction which is likely to affect prejudicially any person shall be made unless such person has been given a reasonable opportunity of making representation in the matter. (2) The Collector shall give immediate notice of any correction made in the award so corrected to all the persons interested. (3) Where any excess amount is proved to have been paid to any person as a result of the correction made 6 under sub-section (1), the excess amount so paid shall be liable to be refunded and in the case of any default or refusal to pay, the same may be recovered, as prescribed by the appropriate Government.” 9. The provisions makes it clear that the application should have been filed within 6 months from the date of award and that to for only correction in respect of clerical or arithmetical mistake and it has ben specifically provided that no correction which is likely to affect prejudicial any person shall be made unless such person has been reasonable and making representation in the matter. 10. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter Dheeraj Singh (supra) has considered the period of delay and for condoning the same and has held as under:- "11. In the matter of land acquisition where land of peasants is acquired, a different approach has to be taken. These persons should not be deprived of the reasonable compensation for their lands. If other similarly situated landowners are given the compensation @ Rs 200 square yard, there is no reason to pay the compensation to the appellants at much lesser rate. In this context, we would like to quote the following observations from the judgment 7 dated 29-11-2013 in Imrat Lal v. Collector (LA) [(2014) 14 SCC 133): "While we agree with Shri Narender Hooda that the averments contained in the application for condonation of delay were extremely vague and did not provide satisfactory explanation for the long delay of 1110 days, but it cannot be ignored that in identical matters another learned Single Judge had granted relief to the landowners by enhancing the compensation and this factor should not have been overlooked by the learned Single Judge while deciding the application for condonation of delay. We can take judicial notice of the fact that villagers in our country are by and large illiterate and are not conversant with the intricacies of law. They are usually guided by their co-villagers, who are familiar with the proceedings in the courts or the advocates with whom they get in touch for redressal of their grievance. Affidavits filed in support of the applications for condonation of delay are usually drafted by the advocates on the basis of half-baked information made available by the affected persons. Therefore, in the acquisition matters involving claim for award of just 8 compensation, the court should adopt a liberal approach and either grant time to the party to file better affidavit to explain delay or suo motu take cognizance of the fact that large number of other similarly situated persons who were affected by the determination of compensation by the Land Acquisition Officer or the Reference Court have been granted relief. In Samiyathal v. Tahsildar [Civil Appeal No. 5335 of 2013, order dated 5-7-2013 (SC)] decided on 5-7- 2013, this Court took cognizance of the fact that many landowners may not have been able to seek intervention of this Court for grant of enhanced compensation due to illiteracy, poverty and ignorance and issued direction that those who have not filed special leave petition should be given enhanced compensation. The relevant portion of the judgment passed in that case is extracted below: 'We further direct the respondents and the State of Tamil Nadu to pay the same amount of compensation to other landowners whose land was acquired by the Notification dated 22-5-1991, but who may have on account of ignorance, poverty and other similar 9 handicaps, not been able to approach the Reference Court or may not have been able to contest the matter before the High Court and this Court. The needful be done in respect of other landowners within a period of six months. This direction has been given in exercise of the power vested in this Court under Article 142 of the Constitution.' In view of the above discussion, the appeal is allowed, the impugned order is set aside and the delay in filing RFA No. 5477 of 2011 by the appellant is condoned.” 13. Thus, in almost all cases, the rate of Rs 200 per square yard has been applied by the High Court and this Court. 14. The appellants are identically situated and there is no reason to meet out a different treatment to them. We also note that, while in these cases, the High Court had refused to condone the delay and dismissed the LPAs of the appellants, other LPAs were allowed by the High Court itself by condoning the delay of the same magnitude in the same circumstances. 15. Equities can be balanced by denying the appellants' interest for the period for which they did 10 not approach the Court. The substantive rights of the appellants should not be allowed to be defeated on technical grounds by taking hypertechnical view of self-imposed limitations. In the matter of compensation for land acquisition, we are of the view that approach of the court has to be pragmatic and not pedantic. 16. The principles regarding condonation of delay particularly in land acquisition matters, have been enunciated in Collector (LA) v. Katiji [(1987) 2 SCC 107: 1989 SCC (Tax) 172], wherein it is stated in para 3 as under: (SCC p. 108). "3. The legislature has conferred the power to condone delay by enacting Section 5 of the Limitation Act of 1963 in order to enable the courts to do substantial justice to parties by disposing of matters on expression 'sufficient cause' employed by the legislature is adequately elastic to enable the courts to apply the lave in a meaningful manner which subserves the ends of justice that being the life- purpose for the existence of the institution of courts. It is common knowledge that this Court has been making a justifiably liberal approach in matters instituted in this Court. But the message does not 11 appear to have percolated down to all the other courts in the hierarchy. And such a liberal approach is adopted on principle as it is realised that: (1) Ordinarily a litigant does not stand to benefit by lodging an appeal late. (2) Refusing to condone delay can result in a meritorious matter being thrown out at the very threshold and cause of justice being defeated. As against this when delay is condoned the highest that can happen is that a cause would be decided on merits after hearing the parties. (3) 'Every day's delay must be explained' does not mean that a pedantic approach should be made. Why not every hour's delay, every second's delay? The doctrine must be applied in a rational common sense pragmatic manner. (4) and When substantial justice technical considerations are pitted against each other, cause of substantial justice deserves to be preferred for the other side cannot claim to have vested right in injustice being done because of a non-deliberate delay. 12 (5) There is no presumption that delay is occasioned deliberately, or on account of culpable negligence, or on account of mala fides. A litigant does not stand to benefit by resorting to delay. In fact he runs a serious risk. (6) It must be grasped that judiciary is respected not on account of its power to legalise injustice on technical grounds but because it is capable of removing injustice and is expectd to do so.” 11. From perusal of the order it seems that the authorities have impressed by the provisions and only on the basis that there is prescribed limitation of 6 months in preferring the application they have not considered it further whether the delay which has been shown can be condoned or not. 12. From perusal of the order rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, it seems that the Hon’ble Supreme Court has considered this aspect and has held that since other co-owners have already been given benefit of enhanced amount of compensation and as such only for the reason that the petitioner has approached with some delay he cannot be denied for grant of compensation. 13. In the present matter also the similarly situated person whose land has been acquired by the same award dated 22.11.2018 and who have approached the concerned authorities for 13 correction, they have been facilitated with enhanced compensation amount applying in principles of the aforesaid judgment and as such to the petitioner being on same footing can also be considered for enhancement for compensation and the period of limitation would not come into the way of the petitioner. 14. In the earlier round, the petitioner has approached before this court in which this Court vide order dated 25.01.2022 passed in WPC No. 469/2022(Chetan Kumar @ Chaitanya vs. State of Chhattisgarh & Ors.) has directed the authorities to consider the case of the petitioner and to pass appropriate orders. The Division Bench has also passed some order in the same line in WA No. 7/2019 15. In the present matter, the compensation has not been calculated in a proper manner and as such while applying Section 33 of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, the respondent authorities are directed to consider the case of the petitioner and to pass a reasoned order in accordance with law. 16. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 29.09.2022 passed by Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue)-cum-Land Acquisition Officer, Dabhra is here by set-aside. 17. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. 14 18. The concerned authorities are directed to pass order in accordance with law after giving proper opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and by not influencing to the fact that it has been filed after 6 months from the date of award. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Raghu Jat