1 2025:CGHC:9931 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR (Order reserved on 02/12/2024) (Order delivered on 27/02/2025) CONT No. 149 of 2024 1 - Manharan Lal Jaiswal S/o Dukaud, Aged About 71 Years R/o Village Beltara, Tehsil Beltara, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh.(Petitioner) ...Petitioner versus 1 - Shri Ajay Kumar Dhal Project Director, National Highway Authority Of India, Project Implementation Unit Abhilasha Parisar Behind New Bus Stand Bilaspur District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh. (Respondent No. -2) ... Respondent For Petitioner : Mr. Rupesh Shrivastava, Advocate For Contemnor : Mr. Dhiraj Kumar Wankhede, Advocate (Hon'ble Shri Arvind Kumar Verma, Judge) C A V Judgment 1. The instant contempt petition has been filed alleging non-compliance of the order dated 25/08/2023 passed by this Court in WPS No.1132 of 2023, whereby the said writ petition was disposed of directing Respondent No.2 to take decision on the claim of the petitioner ASHUTOSH MISHRA Digitally signed by ASHUTOSH MISHRA Date: 2025.03.01 11:25:15 +0530 2 pursuant to the memos/letters written by Respondent No.4 therein, in accordance with law, expeditiously preferably within a period of three months from the date of receipt of copy of the order. 2. The case of the petitioner is that pursuant to the order passed by this Court, the petitioner made an application for compliance of the order this Court on 20/09/2023, however, till date the contemnor has not taken any decision with respect to the compensation to be paid to the petitioner towards her land. Therefore, this is willful disobedience of the order passed by this Court. 3. Per contra, learned counsel for the contemnor would submit that after the order passed by this Court a fresh demarcation was carried out by the revenue officers, wherein it has been reported that the different area has been shown to be affected in Khasra No.477/17 and the there is difference in the area of land bearing Khasra No.477/17 and it has to be re-determined and the action has been taken in compliance of the order passed by this Court. He filed the copy of the demarcation report along with letter dated 28/08/2024 and would submit that the claim of the petitioner has been decided. Therefore, he would submit that the contemnor has not committed deliberate disobedience of the order passed by this Court and the contempt has been purged. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents. 3 5. This Court by order dated 25/08/2023 has passed the following order:- 8. From the aforementioned exercise done by respondent No.4, it is apparent that the lands, which are not subject matter of award passed by respondent No.4, are also used by respondent No.2 in construction of road. Respondent No.4 after getting knowledge about use of excess land ofvillagers by respondent No.2, has forwarded letter/ memo to respondent No.2 on 21.9.2022 for initiating proceedings for publication of notification under Section 3A of the Act of 1956, description of which is given along with Proforma No.10. Respondent No.2 in its reply to writ petition has not made any pleading with regard to letters written by respondent No.2 on 21.9.2022 and 16.12.2022. It is settled position that the facts which are not disputed or denied in specific terms are treated to be admitted. 9. Another aspect of the case is that claim of petitioner is not with regard to erroneous calculation of compensation in lieu of acquisition of land, which is subject matter of Notifications issued under Section 3A & 3D, as 4 also part of the award passed under Section 3G. But, the claim of petitioner is that in respect of excess land utilized by respondent No.2 for construction of road without initiating any proceeding for acquisition and grant of compensation of subject land. In such circumstances, where respondent No.4 ordered for spot inspection and verification by constituting a Committee of revenue officers and the said Committee after spot inspection, arrived at the conclusion that the land in excess to what was acquired is used by respondent No.2 and based thereon, respondent No.4 wrote letter to respondent No.2 on 21.9.2022 and 16.12.2022 for initiating proceedings for issuance of notification of Section 3A of the Act of 1956 in respect of left out land but till date respondent No.2 has not responded to those letters. 10. 10. In view of the above, this writ petition stands disposed of at this stage directing respondent No.2 to take decision on the claim of petitioner pursuant to memos/letters written by 5 respondent No.4, in accordance with law, expeditiously preferably within a period of three months from the date of receipt of this order. 6. The respondent along with his reply has filed the copy of the order dated 28/08/2024 from perusal of the same it is crystal clear that the Competent Authority (Land Acquisition) Bilaspur by its letter dated 28/08/2024 has stated that there is a difference in the total area of subject matter land mentioned in demarcation report dated 21/09/2022 and 01/08/2024. Therefore, it is a matter of Batankan Khasra. Therefore, the rights of the property and apportionment of the amount will have to be settled before the Civil Court as per the provisions of Section 3H (4) of the National Higway Act, 1956 for decision in the matter. The copy of the order dated 28/08/2024 has been duly communicated to the petitioner. 7. From perusal of the letter dated 28/08/2024 it is apparent that the award has been passed in the case of the petitioner and the amount has already been deposited in the account of the petitioner and the contemnor has not only decided the representation of the petitioner but also informed the same to the petitioner and the amount pursuant to the acquisition of land has already been deposited in the account of the petitioner and the liberty has been given to the petitioner to approach the Civil Court for redressal of his grievance because there 6 is difference in the demarcation report dated 21/09/2022 & 01/08/2024. 8. In view of the above, no deliberate contempt has been made out against the contemnor. Accordingly, the contempt proceedings are closed and the contempt petition is disposed of. 9. However, the petitioner shall be at liberty to avail the remedy as available to her under the provisions of the National Higways Act, 1956. SD/- SD/- SD/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) Judge Ashu