1 2025:CGHC:8115-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WA No. 119 of 2025 Ashwani Bandhe S/o Late Shri Mohan Lal Bandhe Aged About 51 Years R/o Village Barouda, Post - Mana Camp, Tah. Aarang, District - Raipur (C.G.). ... Appellant(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through - Secretary Public Works Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, New Raipur, Raipur (C.G.). 2 - Executive Engineer, Public Works Department, Division No. 1, Rapur, Tah And District - Raipur (C.G.). (Public Works Department Wrongly Mentioned As Public Welfare Department). 3 - Collector, Raipur, Tah And District Raipur (C.G.). 4 - Land Acuisition Officer / Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue), Raipur, District - Raipur (C.G.). ... Respondent(s) For Appellant(s) : Mr. Ravindra Sharma, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mr. Shashank Thakur, Dy. A.G. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal , Judge Judgment on Board Per Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice 17.02.2025 2 1. Heard Mr. Ravindra Sharma, learned counsel for the appellant. Also heard Mr. Shashank Thakur, learned Deputy Advocate General for respondent / State. 2. The appellant has filed this writ appeal against the order dated 14.01.2025 passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition (C). No. 4066/2021 (Ashwani Bandhe vs. State of Chhattisgarh and Others) whereby the learned Single Judge has dismissed the writ petition filed by the writ petitioners / appellant herein. 3. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner/appellant is the title holder of Bhumi Swami land bearing Kh. No. 271/1, area 0.178 Hec. situated at Vill-Amlidih, P.H. No. 69, R.N. Circle Raipur-2, Tah. & Dist-Raipur (C.G.). That the petitioner/appellant has purchased the above mentioned land from legal representative of Phool Singh and others vide registered sale deed dated 04.09.2019 and corrected his name in revenue records. The area on which the road has been constructed is open land/non agricultural land, therefore after purchase the land the petitioner/appellant made an application for demarcation of the said land on 11.10.2019 before the Nayab Tahsildar Raipur which was registered as case No. 02/A-12/2019-20 and the notices/memo were issued to the owner of the adjoining land of the petitioner/appellant on 11.10.2021, that on the presence of the concerned persons the demarcation was conducted on 21.11.2019 and Panchnama was prepared, thereafter the Revenue Inspector 3 of Revenue Circle-11 submitted his report before the Nayab Tahsildar on 28.11.2019. After the demarcation, the petitioner/appellant for first time came to know that the respondent authority has constructed the road connected from Raipur to Mana Airport known as V.I.P. Road, without any acquisition and payment of compensation of the land. The petitioner/appellant made a representation before the respondent authority for payment of compensation which was rejected by the respondent authority stating that the land has been acquired, award has been passed in Land Acquisition Case No. 599/A-82/1975-76 and the compensation has also been paid to the owner of the land before construction of road. After rejection of the representation the petitioner/appellant made an application under Right to Information Act on 07.02.2020 stating that petitioner/appellant the owner of the land and the compensation against the said so called acquisition has not been paid to the previous owner Phool Singh and other or the petitioner/appellant and if the compensation has been paid, the copy of said order may be provided. That the respondent No.2 gave reply of the application of the petitioner/appellant stating that the compensation has been paid and annexed the copy of register. Being aggrieved by the reply of the respondent No.2 the petitioner/appellant preferred the first appeal before the first appellate authority Superintending Engineer Public Works Department on 19.03.2020. The First Appellate Authority issued the notice to the respondent no.2 and called the explanation and 4 after that on 10.07.2020 passed the final judgment, wherein it has been clearly mentioned that no document regarding the award and payment of compensation is available in the office of respondent No. 02. The respondent State filed the reply of the petition stating that the land has been acquired after following the due process of law and after payment of compensation. The state further submitted in its reply that original Khasra No. 271 was divided into 06 pieces and as per demarcation report Khasra No. 271/1 admeasuring 0.178 hectare was subsequently purchased by the present petitioner/appellant. Khasra No. 271/2 admeasuring 0.004 hectare was purchased by Daffodil enterprises, Shanti Niketan, New Delhi, Khasra No. 271/3 admeasuring 0.130 hectare was purchased by one Sharad, S/o Kripa Shankar, Khasra No. 271/4 admeasuring 0.008 hectare was purchased by Daffodil enterprises, Shanti Niketan, New Delhi, Khasra No. 271/5 admeasuring 0.004 hectare was also purchased by Daffodil enterprises, Shanti Niketan, New Delhi and 271/6 admeasuring 0.032 hectares was purchased by one Shalini, W/o Arvind Tiwari. The total area of the six pieces of land comes to 0.356 hectares of the original Khasra No. 271. The state further submitted that the acquisition proceeding was carried out in the year 1975-76 but the original owner Phool Singh has not raised any objection, therefore the petitioner/appellant has no locus to go into the same. The appellant/petitioner filed the rejoinder of the reply filed by the respondent No. 1 to 5 and denied the submissions made by the 5 State. Thereafter, the final order was passed on 30.07.1979 wherein it was specifically ordered that the payment of compensation be made to the concerned farmers by the department after registration of documents. The respondent Authority has without payment of compensation and without following the due process of law forcefully constructed the road over the land of the then owner Phool Singh and the revenue records has not been corrected because the road has been constructed without payment of compensation and after purchase the land vide sale deed dated 04.09.2019 and after demarcation of the land, the petitioner/appellant for the first time came to know about the construction of road over his land and vide registered sale deed dated 04.09.2019, Phool Singh has transferred right, title and liabilities in favour of the petitioner/appellant, therefore he has right to claim the compensation of the land which has already been acquired by the state and for that the appellant/petitioner has already paid a huge amount to vendor Phool Singh. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the order dated 14.01.2025 is illegal, improper and contrary to the record, therefore is not sustainable in the eye of law. The learned Single Judge has failed to appreciate that the respondent / State has not filed any document to show that the land has been acquired after following the due process of law and the compensation has been paid to the land owner and also erred in ignoring the order dated 30.07.1979 passed in the Land Acquisition Proceeding, wherein it 6 has been specifically mentioned that the payment of compensation be made to the concerned farmers by the department after registration of documents. The respondent / State has failed to produce any registered document to show that the registration has been done after payment of the compensation, which shows that the land of the petitioner/appellant has not been acquired and the compensation has not been paid. The land bearing Khasra No. 271 is open land and the other purchaser of the part of Kh. No. 271 are in possession of the land and when the dispute arose with regard to the area of possession the demarcation was conducted by the Revenue Authority and then the fact came into the knowledge of the parties that over some part of the land road has been constructed. The learned Single Judge erred in ignoring that the appellant/petitioner is the owner of the property, therefore he is entitled to get the compensation of the land over which the road has been constructed without acquisition. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondents opposes the submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellants and submits that the learned Single Judge after considering all the aspects of the matter has rightly dismissed the writ petition filed by the writ petitioner / appellant herein, in which no interference is called for. 6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned order and other documents appended with the writ appeal. 7 7. From perusal of the impugned order, it transpires that the learned Single Judge while dismissing the writ petition preferred by the writ petitioner / appellant herein has held that the original owner of Survey No.271 measuring 0.356 hect. was Phool Singh. He sold his property in parts. One part admeasuring 0.178 hect. was purchased by the writ petitioner through a registered sale deed on 04.09.2019. The writ petitioner moved an application for demarcation wherein he found that an area of 858 sq.meter has already been used for the construction of a road. The documents filed along with the return would reveal that the land acquisition proceeding was initiated by the respondent authorities and compensation of Rs.1524.68 was paid to the original owner/Phool Singh in the year 1975-76. As the acquisition proceeding was completed in the year 1975-76 and Phool Singh was paid compensation, therefore, the aggrieved party may be Phool Singh and not the present writ petitioner. Further, the learned Single Judge discussed Section 55 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 and concluded that the writ petitioner ought to have inquired about the position and status of the property before purchasing it. As the land was already acquired and compensation was paid prior to 04.09.2019, the writ petitioner has no right to claim compensation again. The writ petitioner should have claimed compensation from the original owner of the property i.e. Phool Singh. 8. Considering the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and the finding recorded by the learned Single Judge 8 while dismissing the writ petition filed by the writ petitioner / appellant herein, we are of the considered opinion that the learned Single Judge has not committed any illegality, irregularity or jurisdictional error in the impugned order warranting interference by this Court. 9. Accordingly, the writ appeal being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. No cost(s). Sd/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Manpreet