1 CGHC010171972021 2026:CGHC:36386 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 2935 of 2021 Tilak Ram Sahu S/o. Baratu Ram Sahu Aged About 66 Years R/o. Village Thumsa, Revenue Circle Patewa, Tehsil And District Mahasamund (Chhattisgarh), District : Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Department Of Water Resource, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Atal Nagar, Raipur (Chhattisgarh), District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - The Collector District Mahasamund (Chhattisgarh) 3 - The Executive Engineer Kodar Reservoir Project, Water Resource Department Mahasamund, District Mahasamund (Chhattisgarh) 4 - The Sub Divisional Officer Kodar Reservoir Project, Water Resource Department Mahasamund, District Mahasamund (Chhattisgarh) -- Respondents (Cause title is taken from CIS system) For Petitioner : Mr. Shubhank Tiwari, Advocate For Respondents/State : Mr. Dharmesh Shrivastava, Dy.Govt. Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Parth Prateem Sahu Order On Board 14/08/2026 1. Petitioner has filed this petition seeking following relief (s) :- “10.A That, the Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to call for the entire records pertaining to the case of the petitioner for kind perusal of this Hon’ble Court. 10.B That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue a writ/writs, order/orders, direction/directions to direct the Respondent Authorities for determining and disbursing the compensation amount in lieu of his lands BALRAM PRASAD DEWANGAN Digitally signed by BALRAM PRASAD DEWANGAN 2 which are acquired by the respondent authorities for Kodar Reservoir Project within stipulated time. 10.C That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue a writ/writs, order/orders, direction/directions to direct the respondent authorities to pay legal cost and expenses as envisaged by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. 10.3 Any other relief which may be deemed fir by this Hon’ble Court just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case may also be provided in favour of the petitioner. 2. Learned counsel for petitioner would submit that petitioner had purchased the land bearing Kh. 690, 996, 1092/2, 1091, 1099, 1100/1, 1101/1, 1100/2, 1086, 1087, 1221, 1209, 1210 and 593 from Smt. Amabai, Wd/o. Lae Chamar Rai Sahu vide registered sale deed dated 23.08.1980, situated at village Thusma, P.C. No.9, R.I. Circle Patewa, Tehsil and District and Mahasamund. Due to some dispute, with regard to land purchased by petitioner from Amabai, he filed a civil suit bearing Civil Suit No.7-A/184 for declaration of title and possession, which was allowed in favour of petitioner to the extent of ¼ share of the property forming part of the Schedule-A of the suit. The order of the trial Court is put to challenge by the defendants therein, before the Additional District Judge, Mahasamund, District Raipur, which came to be dismissed vide judgment dated 04.07.1997. Land of petitioner situated at village Thumsa came under water while construction of Kodar Dam along land of village Jhilmila, Odar, Kuhari. Initially the authorities have taken the decision to pay the compensation based on purchase policy of the State Government, however, when complaint was received by higher authorities that appropriate amount of compensation is not paid to the land owners and arbitrary 3 compensation is being computed by the authorities, the Secretary had issued a direction to compute the compensation/acquired the land under Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (In short ‘the Act, 1894’), however, no such proceedings under the Act, 1894 has been initiated by the respondents. He contended that in the letter/memo dated 25.01.1999, the Collector has mentioned the land area of the land of four villages including village Thumsa, which is remaining to be compensated and instructions is sought for the rate of the land for computing the amount of compensation. He also submits that in the letter the reason assigned for non-making compensation is that the dispute is pending in the Court. He contended that the land of Thumsa as mentioned in the sale letter includes the land of petitioner also, from which it is apparent that till 1999, amount of compensation has not been computed with regard to land of petitioner. He next contended that similarly placed persons Bhikhari Lal Sahu and Smt. Ram Kunwar Bai, whose lands were situated at Village Jhilmila came under submerged area of Kodar Dam have filed writ petition raising grievance that they have not been paid the compensation. This Court vide order dated 29.08.2018 in WPC No.1053 of 2013 has passed the order directing the State authorities to take immediate steps to compute the compensation amount and to pay the interest from the date of dispossession till the amount is paid. He submits that after passing of the order, respondent authorities have initiated the proceedings determining the amount of compensation under the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (in short ‘the Act of 2013’), therefore, in the facts of the case, case of petitioner is also 4 covered with the order dated 29.08.2018 in WPC No.1053 of 2013, hence, same order may be passed in this case also. 3. Learned State counsel vehemently opposes the submission of learned counsel for petitioner and would submit that case of petitioner is different than that of the case of Bikhari Lal Sahu, petitioners in WPC No.1053 of 2013. He contended that proceedings of land acquisition was of the year 1980. The amount of compensation to be paid to the petitioner is computed, however, even after notice dated 24.11.2008 petitioner did not appear before the Sub-Divisional Officer to accept the amount of compensation so computed. Writ petition is filed with inordinate delay. 4. When this Court posed question to learned State counsel as to where are the proceedings of the land acquisition and copy of the award, he submits that such documents have not been filed along with reply. He however, submits that other documents, which is part of the proceedings of the acquisition and compensation computed by the Sub-Divisional Officer is placed on record Annexure R-1. 5. I have heard learned counsel for parties and perused the documents placed on record. 6. Grievance of petitioner is that even after letter written by Secretary of the State of Madhya Pradesh to initiate the proceedings of the acquisition under the Act of 1894, no land acquisition proceedings have been drawn under the Act of 1984 nor any amount of compensation is paid to petitioner. 7. To appreciate this submission, based on the pleadings and reply of the respective parties and perused the documents Annexure R-1 filed 5 along with reply by State Government. Though revenue case is mentioned in Page-9, however, no documents is enclosed along with reply with regard to proceeding drawn under Section 4, 5, 6 and 9 of the Act of 1894. 8. Section 23 of the Act, 1894 provides for that matter to be considered in determining compensation. The aforementioned provision is relevant in the facts of the case, therefore, it is extracted below for ready reference :- “23. Matters to be considered in determining compensation.—(1) In determining the amount of compensation to be awarded for land acquired under this Act, the Court shall take into consideration— first, the market-value of the land at the date of the publication of the 46[notification under Section 4, sub-section (1)]; secondly, the damage sustained by the person interested, by reason of the taking of any standing crops or trees which may be on the land at the time of the Collector's taking possession thereof; thirdly, the damage (if any) sustained by the person interested, at the time of the Collector's taking possession of the land, by reason of severing such land from his other land; fourthly, the damage (if any) sustained by the person interested, at the time of the Collector's taking possession of the land, by reason of the acquisition injuriously affecting his other property, movable or immovable, in any other manner, or his 6 earnings; fifthly, if, in consequence of the acquisition of the land by the Collector, the person interested is compelled to change his residence or place of business, the reasonable expenses (if any) incidental to such change; and sixthly, the damage (if any) bona fide resulting from diminution of the profits of the land between the time of the publication of the declaration under Section 6 and the time of the Collector's taking possession of the land. [(1-A) In addition to the market-value of the land, as above provided, the Court shall in every case award an amount calculated at the rate of twelve per centum per annum of such market-value for the period commencing on and from the date of the publication of the notification under Section 4, sub-section (1), in respect of such land to the date of the award of the Collector or the date of taking possession of the land, whichever is earlier. Explanation.—In computing the period referred to in this sub-section, any period or periods during which the proceedings for the acquisition of the land were held up on account of any stay or injunction by the order of any court shall be excluded.] (2) In addition to the market-value of the land, as above provided, the Court shall in every case award a sum of 48[thirty per centum] on such market-value, in consideration of the compulsory nature of the acquisition.” 9. Under the Act of 1894, six parameters have been provided for determining the amount of compensation. The computation of compensation made by respondent authorities as stated by State counsel in his reply and during the course of arguments by referring to Page-12 would show that while computing the amount of 7 compensation, the parameters which are required to be considered for computing the amount of compensation has not been mentioned, therefore, in absence of the record of the proceedings under Section 4, 6, 9 of the Act of 1894 and further non-filing of copy of award, the submission made by respondents/State that acquisition proceedings is drawn and compensation is determined following due process of law cannot be accepted. 10. Due to non-filing of documents of proceedings of land acquisition as provided under the Act of 1894 and non-filing of copy of award, it can be inferred that respondent/State have not initiated any proceedings of acquisition as provided under the act of 1894, therefore, I am of the view that land acquisition proceedings as provided under the law has not been initiated by the respondents/State. Further from perusal of the documents filed by the State counsel would make it clear that it bears endorsement that payment of compensation is not made at page No.15 in front of name of petitioner. 11. Article 300A of the Constitution of India provides that no person shall be deprived of their property save by authority of law. In the aforementioned facts of the case if State Government is in requirement of immovable property (land), owned by private person, then land owners can be divested of property only after following due procedure of law and in the year 1980, procedure prescribed for acquisition of the property is under the Land Acquisition Act 1894, and making payment of compensation in accordance with the provisions as provided therein. 8 12. Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Vidya Devi v. State of H.P., (2020) 2 SCC 569 has considered the objection raised by respondents/State therein of delay and latches and observed thus : “12.12. The contention advanced by the State of delay and laches of the appellant in moving the Court is also liable to be rejected. Delay and laches cannot be raised in a case of a continuing cause of action, or if the circumstances shock the judicial conscience of the Court. Condonation of delay is a matter of judicial discretion, which must be exercised judiciously and reasonably in the facts and circumstances of a case. It will depend upon the breach of fundamental rights, and the remedy claimed, and when and how the delay arose. There is no period of limitation prescribed for the courts to exercise their constitutional jurisdiction to do substantial justice. 12.13. In a case where the demand for justice is so compelling, a constitutional court would exercise its jurisdiction with a view to promote justice, and not defeat it. [P.S. Sadasivaswamy v. State of T.N., (1975) 1 SCC 152 : 1975 SCC (L&S) 22] 12.14. In Tukaram Kana Joshi v. MIDC [Tukaram Kana Joshi v. MIDC, (2013) 1 SCC 353 : (2013) 1 SCC (Civ) 491] , this Court while dealing with a similar fact situation, held as follows: (SCC p. 359, para 11) “11. There are authorities which state that delay and laches extinguish the right to put forth a claim. Most of these authorities pertain to service jurisprudence, grant of compensation for a wrong done to them decades ago, recovery of statutory dues, claim for educational facilities and other categories of similar cases, etc. Though, it is true that there are a few authorities that lay down that delay and laches debar a citizen from seeking 9 remedy, even if his fundamental right has been violated, under Article 32 or 226 of the Constitution, the case at hand deals with a different scenario altogether. The functionaries of the State took over possession of the land belonging to the appellants without any sanction of law. The appellants had asked repeatedly for grant of the benefit of compensation. The State must either comply with the procedure laid down for acquisition, or requisition, or any other permissible statutory mode.” (emphasis supplied) 13. .Hon’ble Supreme Court in the aforementioned case has also considered the approach of petitioners therein to Court seeking compensation after passing of an order in fvour of other agriculturist/land losers. 14. Coordinate Bench of this Court on a petition filed by some of the land ousters of village Jhilmila land, which is also used for construction of Kodar Dam in same proceedings have allowed the writ petition filed by petitioners in WPC No.1053 of 2013 vide order dated 29.08.2018 and observed thus : 3. In view of the statement made and in view of the order passed by this Court in Banshilal Sidar v State of Chhattisgarh & Others1, wherein this Court has observed that when there is deprivation of constitutional right as enshrined under Article 300A of the Constitution of India, adequate compensation has to be paid in all respects and the State authorities should take immediate steps to compute the compensation amount and pay the interest from the date of possession, till the amount of is paid. The writ petition is disposed of with a direction that while determining the compensation the authorities shall consider 10 payment of interest to the petitioner from the date of dispossession. 15. In the aforementioned facts of the case and the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court and the order passed by the Coordinate Bench in case of Bhikhari Lal Sahu I am of the considered view that respondents State authorities have not initiated the proceedings of the land acquisition under the Act of 1894, therefore, writ this petition is also disposed of directing the State authorities to take immediate steps to compute the amount of compensation and pay the interest from the date of possession till the amount is paid, following due process of law. 16. With the aforesaid observations and directions, this writ petition stands disposed of. Sd/- (Parth Prateem Sahu) Judge Balram