1 2025:CGHC:13951 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR FAM No. 96 of 2014 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Thru- Executive Engineer, Water Resources Division, Rajnandgaon, Distt. Rajnandgaon C.G., Chhattisgarh ... Appellant versus 1 - Sudarshan Verma S/o Sonu Verma Aged About 43 Years R/o Palandur, Post- Mudiya Mohara, Tah. Dongargarh, Distt. Rajnandgaon C.G., Chhattisgarh ... Respondent For appellant : Mr. Santosh Soni and Mr. Rajeev Bharat, Govt. Adv. For Respondent : Mr. Anurag Agrawal, Mr. Ruhul Ameen and Ms. Sameeksha, Adv. (Hon’ble Mr. Justice Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi) Order on Board 22/03/2025 1. This appeal has been preferred challenging the award dated 13- 01-2014 passed by the learned Upper District Judge, Khairagarh, Link Court, Dongargarh, District Rajnandgaon (CG) in MJC No. 7/2007, whereby learned Referral Court / Upper District Judge has directed the Land Acquisition Officer to reassess the amount of award granted to the respondent/applicant. 2. Facts of the case in nutshell, are that land of respondent bearing Khasra No. 883/1 area 2.25 acre and Khasra No. 891/1 area 0.09 acre (out of total area 3.28 acre of Khasra No. 891/1) situated at village Palandur, PH No. 10, RNM Dongargarh, Tahsil Dongargarh, Distt. Rajnandgaon was compulsorily acquired by the appellant for construction of canal vide award dated 26-10-20204 (Annexure A-2) passed by the Land Acquisition Officer in Digitally signed by AVANISH KUMAR PATHAK Date: 2025.03.29 11:34:25 +0530 2 Land Acquisition Case No. 1A/1982 year 2003-04 under the provisions of Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (henceforth, referred to as ‘’the Act, 1894’), to which, notification under Section 4 of the Act, 1894 was published on 9-1-2004 and notification under Section 6 of the Act, 1894 was published on 9-4-2004. Thereafter, award (Annexure A-2) was passed on 26-10-2004. Being dissatisfied with the amount of award, the respondent filed an application under Section 18 of the Act, 1894 before the Collector, Rajnandgaon, who referred the matter to the concerned District Judge, Rajnandgaon for consideration, from where, the case was transferred to Upper District Judge, Khairagarh, Link Court, Dongargarh, who considered the matter, recorded evidence adduced by the parties and after considering the evidence and contention of the parties, passed the impugned award (Annexure A-1) dated 13-1-2014 directing appellant herein to reassess the amount of compensation granted to the respondent herein considering his land ‘un- irrigated Bharri (2.25 acre Khasra No. 883/1) and ‘irrigated’ (0.09 acre Khasra No. 891/1) on the basis of market value. Being aggrieved by the impugned order dated 13-1- 2014 (Annexure A-1), the appellant/State has preferred instant appeal. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that, impugned order is not an order under Section 26 of the Act, 1894. The Court itself should have done calculation and passed the award, a party/Land Acquisition Officer should not be directed to make calculation. The award passed by the Land Acquisition Officer does not call for any interference because appropriate compensation has been awarded to the land oustee. Therefore, instant appeal may be allowed and the impugned award (Annexure A-1) may be set aside. 3 4. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent would submit that, the impugned award (Annexure A-1) does not call for any interference of this Court, as, as per para 10 of the award dated 26-10-2004 (Annexure A-2), the Land Acquisition Officer himself has computed the amount of compensation on the basis of sale and purchase occurred between 10-1-2003 and 9-1-2004 i.e. one year prior to issuance of notice under Section 4 of the Act, 1894, but the Land Acquisition Officer, instead of taking total market value of the sold - purchased land i.e. 21.71 acres in one year in Rs. 9,26,200/-, it has assessed the market value on the basis of land revenue of the aforesaid total land. Hence, he prays that the appeal be rejected. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record including the record of the Court below. 6. Perusal of record of reference Court / Upper District Judge, shows that, to substantiate his claim, the respondent has examined witnesses and has also filed documents. Those oral and documentary evidence show that, there was a well along with motor pump on the land bearing Khasra No. 891/1 area 3.28 acre. Respondent’s witnesses have also deposed that the land bearing Khasra No. 883.1 area 2.25 acre was though un-irrigated, but it was used for production of Kodon, Rahar etc. 7. Annexure-A-2 is award dated 26-10-2004 passed by the Land Acquisition Officer. In para 10 of aforesaid award, the Land Acquisition Officer has mentioned the method of assessment of award amount. Para 10 of the award is reproduced as under:- 4 "उपरो्ሹ वቓኌ त कं डिकाओं के परिरपेቌኚय में इस ्ቚकर में धारा - 4(1) की अडिधसूचना के ्ቚकाशन दि"नांक से ठीक एक व्ቧ' पूव' अቕኋा'त् दि"नांक 9.1.2004 से ठीक एक व्ቧ' पूव' दि"नांक 10-1.2003 से 9.1.2004 तक की अवडिध में ्ቇाम पलां"ूर में ्ቅय-दिव्ቅय को आधार माना गया है, इसके अनुसार ्ቇाम पलां"ूर में उ्ሹ अवडिध में कु ल 21-71 एकड़ भूदिम को कु ल रूपये 9,26,200.00 में दिव्ቅय दिकया गया है। दि6्ቅी हुई भूदिम का कु ल लगान रूपये 36.27½ पैसा है, जि9ससे ्ቚडित रूपया लगान के आधार पर औसत दि6्ቅी 6ा9ार "र/मूल्य रूपये 25,533/-हुआ, जि9से संल्ሿ परिरशिश्ቖ "अ" के अनुसार दिनधा'रिरत दिकया 9ाता है। अቌኌ9त की 9ा रही भूदिम में दिकसी ्ቚकार की संरचना या रिरहायशी मकान, कुं आ, इमारती वृ्ቌ आदि" रा9स्व अडिधकारी के ्ቚडितवे"न के अनुसार नहीं होने के कार दिकसी ्ቚकार के मुआव9ा के सं6ंध में काय'वाही करना उडिचत नहीं समझता ।" 8. Perusal of aforesaid method adopted by Land Acquisition Officer itself shows that amount of compensation was assessed by it by taking into consideration, the total value of sale and purchase held between 10.01.2003 to 09.01.2004, i.e. one year prior to the issuance of the notification under Section 4 of the Act 1894, in which total 21.71 acre land of Village Palandur was sold for total sale consideration of Rs.9,26,200/-. But, Land Acquisition Officer instead of calculating the amount of compensation on the basis of total sale consideration, it has determined market value of the acquired land on the basis of land revenue fixed against aforesaid sold land. It is best known to the Land Acquisition Officer, how compensation for the land acquired by the 5 government can be calculated on the basis of land revenue. This method of wrong calculation caused land oustees/claimants to huge pecuniary loss, therefore, Referral court has rightly directed the Land Acquisition Officer to recalculate/recompute the amount of compensation on the basis of actual market value of said acquired land of respondent/applicant and thereafter compensation payable to the petitioner be granted to him. 9. Having considered the oral and documentary evidence brought by the respondent/applicant on record and in view of above discussions, I do not find any good ground to interfere in impugned award. Therefore, impugned award passed by the learned Reference Court to the extent of re-calculation of amount of compensation and payment of difference amount against already paid, is upheld. 10. Though, vide impugned award, learned Upper District Judge, Khairagarh, Link Court, Dongargarh, District Rajnandgaon (C.G.) has directed the non-applicant to comply with the order, whereas the non-applicant is Government of Chhattisgarh, through Executive Engineer, Irrigation Department, Rajnandgaon, but the State Government is already a party and direction has also been issued to it. The Land Acquisition Officer is also represented by the State Government, as such, only not using proper authority, i.e., Land Acquisition Authority by the Upper District Judge to comply with the impugned award could not be a ground to deny compliance of the impugned award. Therefore, the contention raised by the State counsel is not found to be proper. But, to meet out the conclusion, it is made clear that the impugned award dated 13-01-2014 shall be complied with by the concerned Land Acquisition Officer as well as by appellant. 6 11. Accordingly, instant appeal stands dismissed. 12. So far as cross-objection under Order 41 Rule 22 of the C.P.C. filed by the respondent praying for direction to the appellant to pay enhanced compensation amount along with interest on the excess amount is concerned, Sections 28 & 34 of the Act, 1894 itself provides provisions for grant of interest, therefore, appellant/State/Land Acquisition Officer is bound to pay interest as per aforesaid relevant provisions along with other amount, i.e. additional interest, etc. on account of delay etc. As such, cross-objection filed by respondent/claimant is allowed to the extent indicated herein above. 13. Pending interlocutory application(s), if any, stands disposed of. Sd/- (Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi) Judge Pathak/-