1 2025:CGHC:53393 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 1048 of 2022 1 - Chandra Kumar S/o Late Nirmal Singh Aged About 41 Years R/o Village Urga, Tahsil And District- Korba, Chhattisgarh. 2 - Dev Kumar S/o Late Nirmal Singh Aged About 41 Years R/o Village Urga, Tahsil And District- Korba, Chhattisgarh. --- Petitioners versus 1 - Union Of India Through The Secretary, Ministry Of Road Transport And Highways, Nirman Bhawan, New Delhi. 2 - State Of Chhattisgarh, Through The Secretary, Department Of Revenue, Mantralaya Mahanadi Bhavan, Atal Nagar, Naya Raipur, District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 3 - Sub Divisional Officer ( Revenue) Korba, Tahsil And District- Korba, Chhattisgarh. 4 - National Highways Authority Of India, Through The Project Director, Abhilasha Parisar, Bilaspur, Tahsil And District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. --- Respondents ____________________________________________________________ For Petitioner : Mr. R.S. Baghel, Advocate with Ms. Chetana Sharma, Advocate For Respondent No.1/UOI : Mr. Bhupendra Pandey, Advocate For State/Res. No.2 & 3 : Mr. Soumitra Kesharwani, P.L. For Respondent No.4 : None present. Hon'ble Shri Justice Parth Prateem Sahu Order On Board 31/10/2025 1. Petitioners have filed this petition seeking following relief (s) :- BALRAM PRASAD DEWANGAN Digitally signed by BALRAM PRASAD DEWANGAN Date: 2025.11.04 10:30:43 +0530 2 “(i) That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent authorities to disburse the compensation amount to the tune of Rs.15,45,075/- (in respect of petitioner No.1) and Rs.10,62,004/- (in respect of petitioner No.2 along with interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of acquisition of land till the date of actual payment. (ii) Cost of the petition may also be granted to the petitioner. (iii) Any other relief, which this Hon’ble Court deems fit and proper, may also kindly be granted to the petitioner, in the interest of justice. (iv) That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to call the records of the proceedings culminating in order dated 19.09.2022 (Annexure P-4 and further set-aside the order dated 19.09.2022 (Annexure P-4) by issuance of writ of mandamums or any other writ/writs, order/orders of direction/directions.” 2. Learned counsel for petitioners submits that petitioner No.2 purchased the land bearing Kh. No.204/2 area 1.104 hectare from one Smt. Mahashir Bai. After purchase of land, the land purchased by petitioner No.2 has been partitioned between him and his five other brothers orally and came in possession. Thereafter, an application is made to Patwari for correcting the revenue records and accordingly, the land purchased by petitioner No.2 was recorded in the name of all six brothers. The land which is recorded in the name of petitioners and other brothers was notified under Section 3-A of the National Highways Act, 1956 (In short ‘the Act of 1956’) on 15.03.2018. Section 3-D notification of the Act of 1956 was published on 16.08.2018. After completion of land acquisition proceedings, award was passed by 3 Competent Authority under Land Acquisition (CALA) on 11.01.2019 including the land at village Urga, PH No.16 with the land owned by the other persons of same village. List of land looser, khasara numbers of the land, area of the land as also the compensation computed is enclosed as enclosure along with award and the list of the land looser, name of petitioners is mentioned at Sr.No.5(A) and Sr.No.32 as Dev Kumar, S/o. Nirmal Singh, Caste Gond and Chandra Kumar, S/o. Nirmal Singh, Caste Gond respectively. It is contention of learned counsel for petitioners that CALA has computed the amount of compensation to be awarded to the petitioners correctly, which is also specified in the scheduled attached in the award vide Annexure P-1, which is part of award Annexure P-2. When the amount was not disbursed by CALA in their favours, petitioners have filed this petition initially seeking the relief for direction to respondents authorities to disburse the compensation amount as mentioned in front of the name of petitioners in Annexure P-1. It is also contended that this Court issued notice and thereafter, CALA suo-motu opened the proceeding and passed an order on 19.09.2022 canceling the mutation entries made with respect to Kh.No.204 area 1.104 hectare affected area 0.389 hectare and further recomputed the amount of compensation and passed the order disbursing the recalculated amount in favour of petitioners. Order Annexure P-4 dated 19.09.2022 passed by Tahsildar on suo motu proceeding is contrary to law. CALA/SDO (R) is not having jurisdiction to exercise suo-motu powers of revision or correction of any order or any revenue entries made therein by other revenue authority. He also pointed out that in garb of exercising powers in suo-motu proceeding, SDO(R)-cum-CALA has also 4 recomputed the amount of compensation which he could not have done as after passing of the award dated 11.01.2019, he become functus officio to reopen the proceedings of the land acquisition, which has already been concluded by way of passing of an award dated 11.01.2019 (Annexure P-2 and P-1), therefore, the order (Annexuer P- 4) recomputing the amount of compensation canceling the revenue entries, is without jurisdiction or without any authority of law. He also pointed out that the CALA while passing the order Annexure P-4 has even not bother to give notice to the affected persons like petitioners, therefore, also the order Annexure P-4 is in violation of principles of natural justice, hence, it is not sustainable. 3. Learned counsel for respondents-State would oppose the submission of learned counsel for petitioners and would submit that Patwari only on the basis of resolution of Gram Panchayat has corrected the revenue entries made in revenue record possessed by him, recording the land purchased by one brother in names of other five brothers also, which was not the procedure under the C.G. Land Revenue Code, 1959 (In short ‘the Code of 1959’). Therefore, there is no error, however, he submits that additional reply has not been filed resisting or objecting the pleadings made in the amendment of grounds in the writ petition that the order dated 19.09.2022 (Annexure P-4) passed in violation of principles of natural justice without issuing notice. 4. Learned counsel for respondent No.1 would submit that dispute is between petitioners with State and authorities of the National Highway for whom he is not appearing, therefore, he is not making any submission on the merits of claim of petitioners. 5 5. I have heard learned counsel for parties and also perused the documents enclosed along with petition. 6. Main grievance of petitioners in this petition is that the SDO(R)-cum- CALA has recomputed the amount of compensation after culminating the land acquisition proceeding initiated by him by passing an award dated 11.01.2019 and further that order dated 19.09.2022 is passed without issuance of any notice of hearing to the petitioners even though the order dated 19.09.2022 is seriously affecting the rights of petitioner. 7. Perusal of Annexure P-2 would show that CALA has passed an award completing the procedure under the provisions of the Act of 1956 on 11.01.2019 and computed the amount of compensation for the entire land, subject matter of acquisition in the land acquisition proceeding bearing Land Acquisition Case No.30/A-82-2018-19 of Village- Urga as Rs.13,38,32,997/-. Further the enclosure of award dated 11.01.2019 bifurcating the amount of compensation showing entitlement of land owners based on the area of their land acquired is also filed as Annexure P-1, which appears to be part of the award Annexure P-2. In Sr. No.5-A of enclosure/list of land owners, name of petitioner No.2 is mentioned as Devendra, S/o. Nirmal Singh and against his name total computation computed and awarded is Rs.10,62,004/-. Similarly against name of Chandra Kumar, S/o. Nirmal Singh at Sr. No.32, compensation awarded to him is Rs.15,45,075/-. 8. Section 3G of the Act of 1956 envisages “determination of amount payable as compensation” in which the procedure is prescribed for determination of the amount of compensation by CALA and further 6 Section 3G.(5) envisages that if the amount determined by the competent authority under sub-section (1) or sub-section (2) is not acceptable to either of the parties, the amount shall, on an application by either of the parties, be determined by the arbitrator to be appointed by the Central Government. 9. The word either of the parties would include the land looser of the land and beneficiary for whom the land is acquired i.e. National Highway Authority. Under scheme of Section 3 which talks of powers to acquire the land etc. there is no provision for the authority i.e. CALA to reopen the proceedings of the land acquisition after its culmination by way of passing an award computing the amount of compensation. In fact, the competent authority after passing of the order became functus officio to consider the claim, quantum of compensation computed and awarded to the land looser whose land has been acquired for the beneficiary. Therefore, the part of the order recomputing the amount of compensation to be awarded to the petitioners is bad in law as it is without jurisdiction, hence, it is not sustainable accordingly, it is set- aside. 10. So far as the other portion of the order dated 19.09.2022 of correcting the revenue entries recorded in name of petitioners and others with respect to the land bearing Kh. No.204 measuring 1.104 hectare is concerned, petitioner has specifically pleaded and taken a ground that before correcting a revenue entries, no notice was issued to petitioner which is not refuted in specific terms by filing additional return. From the contents of the order it is not appearing that the petitioners were noticed, they appeared or failed to appear even after service of notice, 7 therefore, it will be presumed that petitioners were not served with the notice of the proceedings initiated by the SDO(R). Further the order dated 19.09.2022 records that based on some report received from Tahsildar, proceeding has been initiated suo-motu. 11. Revision under the Code of 1959 is provided under Section 50, which reads as under :- “50. Revision. (1) The Board [or the Commissioner] or the [Commissioner, Land Records] or the Collector or the 4[District Survey Officer] may at any time on its/his motion or on the application made by any party for the purpose of satisfying itself/himself as to legality or propriety of any order passed by or as to the regularity of the proceedings of any Revenue Officer subordinate to it/him call for, and examine the record of any case pending before, or disposed of by such officer, and may pass such order in reference thereto as it/he thinks fit: Provided that- (i) no application for revision shall be entertained (a) against an order appealable under this Code; (b) against an order of the 3[Commissioner, Land Records] under Section 210, (c) against an order passed in revision by the 2[Commissioner or] the 3[Commissioner, Land Records] in respect of cases under Section 170-B, nor shall any such order be revised by the Board on its own motion; 5[(ii) An application for revision against any order can be made within a period of 60 days from the date of the order and in computing the period 8 aforesaid, the time requisite for obtaining a copy of the said order shall be excluded;] (iii) no order shall be varied or reversed in revision unless notice has been served on the parties interested and opportunity given to them of being heard. 2) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1)-- (i) where proceedings in respect of any case have been commenced by the Board under sub- section (1) no action shall be taken by the 1[Commissioner or] the 2[Commissioner, Land Records] or the Collector or the 3[District Survey Officer] in respect thereof; (ii) where proceedings in respect of any case have been commenced by the [Commissioner or] the 2[Commissioner, Land Records] under sub- section (1), no action shall be taken by the Collector or the 3[District Survey Officer] in respect thereof; (iii) where proceedings in respect of any such case have been commenced by the 1[Commissioner,] 2 [Commissioner, Land Records], Collector or 3 [District Survey Officer] under sub-section (1), the Board may either refrain from taking any action under this section in respect of such case until the final disposal of such proceedings by the 1[Commissioner or the] 2[Commissioner, Land Records] or the Collector or the 3[District Survey Officer), as the case may be, or may withdraw such proceedings and pass such order as it may deem fit; 9 (iv) where proceedings in respect of any such case have been commenced by the Collector or the 3 [District Survey Officer) under sub-section (1), 1[the Commissioner or] the 2[Commissioner, Land Records] may either refrain from taking any action under this section in respect of such case until the final disposal of such proceedings by the Collector or the 3[District Survey Officer), as the case may be, or may withdraw such proceedings and pass such order as it may deem fit. Explanation. For the purpose of this section all Revenue Officers shall be deemed to be subordinate to the Board. 12. Sub-section (1) of Section 50 talks of power of suo-motu revision upon authority and mentions as Board [Commissioner] or the [Commissioner, Land Records] or the Collector or the [District Survey Officer) only. Exercise of powers of suo-motu revision is not vested with SDO (R). Suo-motu power of revision can be exercised by the authority having powers of revision under scheme of the Code of 1959, SDO is an appellate authority against the order of Tahsildar. Under proviso (iii) it envisages that no order shall be varied or reversed in revision unless notice has been served on the parties interested and opportunity given to them of being heard. 13. It is specific pleadings and grounds raised by petitioner in the writ petition that before passing an order on 19.09.2022, no notice of hearing has been served upon him/no opportunity of hearing was given to them, therefore, also the order directing correction of revenue entries vide order dated 19.09.2022 is in violation of proviso (iii) of the Section 50 (1) of the Code of 1959. Being so the order correcting 10 revenue entries is in violation of principles of natural justice, therefore, also the part of the order correcting the revenue entries of Annexure P- 4 is also not sustainable. For the foregoing discussions, the entire order dated 19.09.2022 is not sustainable in the eyes of law and accordingly it is set-aside. 14. The land subject matter of the award dated 11.01.2019 is acquired for the National Highway Authority of India Limited, no grievance is raised by respondent No.4/National Highway Authority of India against the said award passed by CALA computing the amount of compensation vide Annexure P-1 and P-2 with regard to acquisition of lands of village Urga and it is not brought to the notice of this Court that no any proceedings against the award Annexure P-2 is pending consideration before the competent authority i.e. the Arbitrator/ Divisional Commissioner. In fact in reply respondent No.4/National Highway Authority of India has pleaded that as the compensation is determined by CALA as per Section 3(G) of the Act of 1956 vide award dated 11.01.2019 and further the amount of award has also been deposited with CALA 15. In the above facts of the case when the award passed by the CALA (Annexure P-2) is not put to challenge by respondent No.4 and have already paid the amount so computed by the CALA in its order dated 11.01.2019 (Annexure P-2), in the opinion of this Court, there is no hindrance/obstruction in disbursing the amount of compensation computed by the CALA in favour of petitioners. CALA-cum-SDO (R), Korba, District Korba is directed to disburse the amount of compensation so computed in its award dated 11.01.2019 in favour of 11 petitioners and deposited by respondent No.4 with it expeditiously within further period of one month from the date of receipt of this order. Petitioners will be at liberty to file appropriate proceedings, if he claims for the interest. 16. Accordingly, this petition is allowed. Sd/- (Parth Prateem Sahu) Judge Balram