1 2025:CGHC:19929 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR FAM No. 37 of 2014 1 - Manjru Lal S/o Daulat Ram Aged About 67 Years R/o Podishankar, Tah. And P.S. Champa, Distt. Janjgir-Champa C.G., ... Appellant versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Thru- Collector, Janjgir, Distt. Janjgir-Champa C.G., 2 - Executive Engineer, Minimata Bango Canal Division No. 02, Water Resources Department, Champa, Tahsil: Champa, Distt. Janjgir-Champa (C.G.), 3 - Land Acquisition Officer, Hasdeo Project, Janjgir, Distt. Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) ... Respondents For Appellant : Mr. Rupendra Kumar Dewangan, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Govind Dewangan, Advocate. For Respondents : Mr. Santosh Soni, Govt. Advocate. Hon’ble Mr. Justice Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi Order on Board 01/05/2025 1. This appeal has been preferred by the appellant under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (henceforth, ‘Act, 1894’) challenging the award dated 20.01.2014 passed by First Upper District Judge, Janjgir, District Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) in CMJC Case No. 09/2008 (Munjru Lal vs. State of Chhattisgarh & another) whereby reference preferred by the appellant has been dismissed. 2. Facts of the case, in nutshell, are that impugned reference was made by the Collector in pursuance of the application filed by appellant under Section 18 of the Act, 1894 wherein it was claim of the appellant that his land bearing Khasra AMIT KUMAR DUBEY Digitally signed by AMIT KUMAR DUBEY Date: 2025.05.07 13:32:04 +0530 2 No. 230/2, 230/3 & 230/4, total area 0.22 acres situated at village Podishankar, District Janjgir-Champa was acquired for construction of ‘Canal’, against which, the appellant has been granted compensation only to the tune of Rs.25,133/- treating the said land as agricultural land whereas it is a land adjacent to the village and road and, therefore, the compensation may be enhanced and the same may be granted @ Rs.5,800/- per dismil alongwith interest @ 12% per annum. 3. Respondents/ State filed its reply, in which, he denied the claim of the appellant that the said land is adjacent to the village and road, rather it was stated that said land was agricultural land. 4. Learned Reference Court / First Upper District Judge, Janjgir, District Janjgir- Champa (C.G.) vide impugned award dated 20.01.2014, framed issues, recorded evidence adduced by the parties and after considering the same, dismissed the reference application filed by the appellant holding therein that the appellant has failed to prove his claim. 5. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the same, the appellant has preferred instant appeal questioning the same. 6. Learned counsel for the appellant while reiterating his pleading, would submit that appellant’s land acquired for construction of ‘canal’ was ‘diverted land’, adjacent to the road and village, therefore, it was residential plot, despite that compensation has been granted to the appellant treating it to be only agricultural land, hence, he prayed that this appeal may be allowed and compensation awarded to the appellant may be enhance suitably. 7. Per contra, learned counsel for the State submits that appellant – Manjru Lal (AW-1) himself has admitted in paragraph 10 of his cross-examination that his land is an agricultural land. This fact has also been admitted by his own witness namely Sunauram (AW-2). No any evidence has been adduced by the appellant to prove the fact that said land is residential plot or adjacent to the village or road. As such, there is no illegality or infirmity in the impugned order dated 20.01.2014 passed by 3 First Upper District Judge, Janjgir, District Janjgir-Champa warranting interference of this Court. 8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record alognwith record of First Upper District Judge, Janjgir, Distt. Janjgir-Champa. 9. Appellant – Manjru Lal (A.W. 1) has stated in his deposition that his land, which was acquired for construction of “Canal”, is a residential land, which is adjacent to village Podishankar, District Janjgir-Champa and road also. This fact has also been supported by his own witness Sunauram (AW-2), but in cross- examination, they themselves have admitted that when it was acquired, at that time, the said land was used for agriculture purposes. Though, the appellant has filed Najri Naksha of the land in question, but he has also filed traced revenue map (Ex.P-5), which shows that said land of appellant bearing Khasra No 230/2, 230/3, & 230/4, total area 0.22 acres acquired for construction of canal is not adjacent to the road, rather it seems to be far from road. Revenue map also does not disclose that, that said land is adjacent to the village. 10. Having considered aforesaid facts and admission made by appellant and his witnesses themselves in their cross-examination, I do not find any good ground to enhance the amount of compensation awarded to the appellant. Thus, there is no merit in the instant appeal, hence, the same is hereby dismissed. Sd/- (Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi) Judge Amit 4