-1- 2025:CGHC:19597 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 1686 of 2013 Premchand Vaidya S/o Lt Shri Jaichand Vaidya, Aged About 69 Years At Present, R/o Ward No. 32, Narmada Nagar, Behind T.V. Showroom, Ps City Kotwali, Distt. Balaghat, Mp , Madhya Pradesh. ... Petitioner versus 1 - The State Of C.G. And Anr. S/o Through Secretary, Nagriya Prasan Avam Vikas Vibhag, Mantralaya, Raipur, Distt Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 2 - Municipal Corporation Through Its Commissioner, Rajnandgaon, District : Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent(s) (Cause Title is taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner : Dr. Nirmal Kumar Shukla, Senior Advocate along with Mr. Parag Kotecha, Advocate & Mr. Varun Vats Sharma, Adv. For State : Mr. Topilal Bareth, Adocate For Respondent No.2 : Mr. Sourabh Sharma, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 30.04.2025 1) The petitioner has filed this petition seeking the following relief(s):- Digitally signed by NADIM MOHLE -2- “10.I. direct the respondents to pay the compensation of the land admeasuirng 3.35 acres of above land at the rate of Rs 450 per square feet, which is the present market value as per the Distt. Valuer Committee, Rajnandgaon to the petitioner. II. or in alternate, direct the respondents authroity to release/ return the land admeasuring to 3.35 acre of land of khsra no. [ (284/1,285, 284/2 311/5, 311/7, 312/1, 2, 3, 313/4, 314/1,317/ 2, 319/3, 320, 321, 323/1,2, 325/1,2,3, 3571,3,5 359 and 360 Rakba 2.14 of kanchan Bagh Colony) and khasra no. 301, 302/ 1,2, 303/1,2 305/1334/1,5,6,7,2 and 334/3 Rakba 1.21 acres of Keshar Nagar, Tahsil and District Rajnandgaon) in favour of the petitioner. III. Any other relief which this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper under the facts and circumstances of the case and in the interest of justice and cost of the petition may be awarded in favour of the petitioner.” 2) Facts of the present case are as under:- A. The petitioner, a registered colonizer, developed two colonies in Rajnandgaon, one at Keshar Nagar Lakholi comprising Survey Nos. 301, 302/1-2, 303/1-2, 305/5, 334/1-5, 334/6, 334/7-2, and 334/5 with a total area of 8.06 acres, and another at Kanchan Bagh Lakholi consisting of Survey Nos. 284/1, 284/2, 285, 311/5, 311/7, 312/1-2, 313/4, 314/1, 317/2, 319/3, 320, 321/1-2, 322/1-2, 323/1-2, 325/1-2-3, 357/1-3-5, 357, and 360 with a total area of 14.98 acres wherein 15% of the developed land, i.e., 3.35 acres were reserved for Economically Weaker Sections. B. The petitioner was required to reserve 15% of land for weaker sections of the society according to the provisions of Chhattisgarh Vinirdisht Bhrasht Acharan Nivaran (Grant of Certificate to Prospective Consumers), Rules, 1991 (for short, the Rules, 1991) and Chhattigsarh Vinirdishta Bhrashta -3- Acharan Nivaran Adhiniyam, 1982 (for short, the Act, 1982). C. A licence was issued to the petitioner according to the above stated Act & Rules which specifically provided that colonizers/developers has to reserve 15 % land. The petitioner reserved 3.456 acre of land out of 23.04 acre. D. It is further case of the petitioner is that lands were purchased by the petitioner in the year 1982, whereas possession was taken by Respondent No. 2 for the benefit of economically weaker sections on 1/6/1997 and 12/7/1997 respectively according to one of the conditions of the License issued to the petitioner. E. It is also pleaded that the Municipal Corporation has assessed the amount of compensation payable to Colonizer according to the market value prevailing in the year 1982. F. Part compensation was paid by the Municipal Corporation to the petitioner on 11/7/2013, vide Cheque No. 071548 for a meager sum of Rs. 1,35,296/- according to the market value of the property prevailing in the year 1982, which was accepted by the petitioner under protest reserving his right to seek fair compensation. Further compensation was paid to the petitioner to the tune of Rs. 6,143 on the same date. G. Upon obtaining the internal note sheets and calculations through the Right to Information Act (Annexure P/3), it became evident that the amount was calculated without any legal basis or adherence to rules, thereafter, the petitioner again requested the authorities for compensation at the market value of Rs. 450 per square feet as assessed by the District Valuation Committee for the year 2013–14 (Annexure P/4). H. A legal notice was issued on 16/8/2013 claiming therein compensation for the entire land of 3.35 acres at the rate of Rs. 450 per square ft. along with 12% annual interest (Annexure P/5), but the respondents failed to take any action, thus, the present petition has been preferred by the petitioner for the payment of appropriate compensation. I. It is stated that various representations were made before respondent No.2 -4- for payment of compensation and finally an application under Section 387 of the Municipal Corporation Act was moved before the learned District Judge, Rajanandgaon, which was rejected vide order dated 18.02.2008. J. A Civil Suit No.117A/2005 claiming therein compensation before the competent Civil Court and it was withdrawn on 2.09.2006. K. In the present case, the petitioner has filed this petition for release/return of subject land or make payment of compensation at the rate of Rs.450/- per squire feet. 3) Dr. Nirmal Kumar Shukla, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the petitioner, submitted that the petitioner purchased the property from various landowners in the year 1982. He contended that the petitioner obtained a license under the Act, 1982 and Rules of 1991. He further submitted that the petitioner developed two colonies and reserved 15 per cent of land for EWS, which comes to 3.456 acres out of a total of 23.04 acres. He stated that the reserved land was handed over to respondent No. 2 in the year 1997 itself. He submitted that respondent No. 2 considered the rate of the property based on the sale deeds executed in 1982 and thereby committed an error of law. He argued that as the land was acquired by the Municipal Corporation in 1997, respondent No. 2 was under the obligation to assess the amount of compensation according to the market value prevailing in 1997. He further submitted that respondent No. 2 made payment of a meager amount against the land reserved for the weaker sections of the society. He prayed that respondent No. 2 may be directed either to return the land or to make payment of compensation at the rate of Rs 450 per square feet. He also submitted that the application moved under Section 387 of the -5- Municipal Corporation Act was not decided on merits by the learned District Judge. He would submit that compensation for 0.59 acres of land has not been paid to the petitioner. 4) Dr. Shukla further stated that the civil suit was withdrawn by the petitioner, and according to the provisions of Rule 36(J) of the Rules of 1991, the civil suit was barred. He also stated that there is no mention in the Act, 1982 & Rules, 1991 regarding the rate or market value of the properties. He contended that though a civil suit was filed, it was withdrawn; therefore, the right of the petitioner to claim compensation still survives and this petition is not barred by any law. He prayed that the petition be allowed. 5) Mr Sourabh Sharma, learned counsel appearing for the respondent, opposed the submissions made by Dr. Shukla. He submitted that the land was handed over to respondent No. 2 in 1997 according to the Act, 1982 & Rules, 1991 and the terms of the license issued to the petitioner. He contended that appropriate compensation was determined by the Corporation against the reserved 15% of the land, and compensation was paid. He further submitted that Rs 1,35,296 was paid to the petitioner for the land reserved in the colony developed at Kanchana on 11.07.2013, and Rs. 6,143 was paid through cheque No. 71048 on 11.07.2013 for the colony at Keshav Nagar. 6) Mr. Sharma further argued that a total of 3.456 acres of land was reserved for the weaker sections of the society, when the colonies were developed by the petitioner. The petitioner approached the District Judge by filing an application -6- under Section 387 in 2006. He stated that the application was duly considered by the learned District Judge and it was held that the petitioner or colonizer would be entitled to receive compensation as per the price mentioned in the sale deed. He also submitted that the civil suit was filed by the petitioner on 02.09.2006, but this fact was suppressed before the learned District Judge, whereas the application under Section 387 was disposed of in 2008. He also submitted that as the petitioner had withdrawn the suit without obtaining the liberty to take recourse to the law, the present writ petition is barred by the principle of constructive res judicata. He further contended that the petitioner failed to challenge the order passed by the District Judge on the application moved under section 387 of the Municipal Corporation Act dated 18.02.2008, and it attained finality. He also contended that the the Chhattisgarh Nagar Palika (Registration of Coloniser, Terms and Conditions) Rules, 1998 (for short, the Rules, 1998) are not applicable as the property was reserved for the weaker sections of the society and possession was already handed over in the year 1997. 7) Mr Topi Lal Bareth, learned Panel Lawyer appearing for the State, supported the submissions made by Mr. Sharma. 8) Heard. 9) Admittedly, the petitioner developed two colonies and according to the Act, 1982 & Rules, 1991 and the terms and conditions of the license, 15 per cent of the land was reserved for the weaker sections of the society. As per the description provided in the petition, the total area of the colony was 23.04 acres and accordingly, the petitioner -7- reserved 3.456 acres of land for the weaker sections. The documents would show that the petitioner purchased lands from various landowners in 1982 through registered sale deeds. He obtained a license in 1990 under the Act, 1982 & Rules, 1991 and started developing colonies in 1997. The petitioner made several representations before respondent No. 2, claiming compensation for the reserved land, but no action was taken. The petitioner then moved an application under Section 387 of the Municipal Corporation Act before the District Judge, Rajnandgaon. The order was passed by the said court on 18.02.2008, holding that the petitioner was entitled to receive compensation based on the actual purchase price of the property. The order further revealed that a civil suit was filed by the petitioner and was pending before the competent civil court. 10) The civil suit was filed by the petitioner in 2005, whereas the application under Section 387 was moved in 2006. The civil suit was withdrawn on 02.09.2006. In the application moved under Order 23 Rule 1 of the CPC, it was stated that the application under Section 387 of the Municipal Corporation Act was pending before the learned District Judge, which was the reason for the withdrawal of the civil suit. Accordingly, permission was granted to withdraw the civil suit. The order passed in the civil suit makes it clear that no liberty was granted to the petitioner to take any further legal recourse. 11) In the application moved under Order 23 Rule 1 of the CPC it was stated one application moved under Section 387 was pending, whereas in the order under -8- Section 387, it is mentioned that the civil suit was pending. However, the civil suit had already been withdrawn prior to the decision on the application. Thus, the petitioner suppressed material facts before both the civil court and the District Judge. 12) The present petition has been filed by the petitioner claiming compensation or return of the land. However, the petitioner has not challenged the order passed by the District Judge on the application moved under Section 387 of the Municipal Corporation Act, and that order has attained finality. 13) It appears that since the land was handed over by the petitioner in 1997 and at that time the Rules of 1998 were not in force, therefore the petitioner’s claim would not be governed by the Rules of 1998. 14) The petitioner developed two colonies in the year 1997; 15% land was reserved for Economically Weaker Sections; respondent no. 2 assessed the compensation according to the purchase value and part of compensation has already been paid. The claim of the petitioner with regard to compensation as per the current market value or Rs. 450 per square feet cannot be considered as the issue has already been resolved by the learned District Judge while deciding the application moved under 387 of Municipal Corporation Act vide order dated 18.2.2008 and the said order has not been challenged by the petitioner before higher forum thus it attained finality. The petitioner also withdrew the civil suit filed before the learned Civil Court. However, sight cannot be lost to the fact that 15% of land of the petitioner was acquired for EWS in the year 1997 thus the -9- petitioner was entitled to receive compensation in that year but part payment was made in the year 2013 by respondent No. 2 therefore the petitioner is entitled to receive compensation along with interest. The amount of compensation already paid and remaining to be paid by the Municipal Corporation shall carry interest at the rate of 8% per annum from the date of handing over possession until its realization. 15) The Municipal Corporation Rajnandgaon is directed to make payment of interest on the delayed payment of compensation and the balance compensation with interest to the petitioner expeditiously, preferably within a period of 90 days. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge Nadim