1 2026:CGHC:19120 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 3392 of 2020 Ajit Kashyap S/o Lalji Kashyap, Aged About 56 Years, Owner Of Part Of Land Bearing Khasra Number 722 R/o Mahamayapara Jarhagaon P.S. Jarhagaon District Mungeli Chhattisgarh, District : Mungeli, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner. Versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary Public Works Department Mahanadi Bhavan, Mantralaya New Raipur District Raipur Chhattisgarh, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - Engineer In Chief, P.W.D/National Highway, Sirpur Bhawan, Near Kali Mandir, Via Governor House Road, Raipur Chhattisgarh. Pin Code 492002, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 3 - Collector, Mungeli Chhattisgarh, District : Mungeli, Chhattisgarh 4 - Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue) Mungeli, District Mungeli Chhattisgarh., District : Mungeli, Chhattisgarh 5 - Executive Engineer, National Highway Division Bilaspur, District Bilaspur (Chhattisgarh), District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh 6 - Union Of India Through Secretary Ministry Of Road Transport And Highways New Delhi, District : New Delhi, Delhi ... Respondents. (cause title downloaded from CIS Periphery) For Petitioner : Mr. Sushobhit Singh, Advocate. For Respondents/ State/UOI : Mr. Ramakant Mishra, DSGI with Mr. Rishabh Dev Singh, CGC and Mr. Arpit Agrawal, Panel Lawyer, respectively. (Hon’ble Shri Justice Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi ) Order on Board 25/04/2026 Digitally signed by AJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI DN: cn=AJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI, ou=HIGH COURT, o=HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, st=Chhattisgarh, c=IN 2 With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the matter is heard finally. 1. This Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed for the followings reliefs:- "I. That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to call for the entire records of the case. II. That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash order dated 26.05.2020 issued by respondent No.5 (Annexure-P/1) III. That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondents authorities to acquire the petitioner land only after following the due process of law and the respondents authorities may be further directed to grant suitable compensation and pass award in lieu of acquisition of the petitioner. IV. Any other relief/reliefs which may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case may also be allowed." 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was granted a Patta (Annexure-P/2) for the land bearing Khasra No.722, admeasuring 210 Sq. Mtr. situated at Village Jarhagaon, Tahsil Mungeli, where he has constructed his house. On 26.05.2020, notice (Annexure-P/1) was served upon the petitioner, stating therein that he had encroached on Government land and constructed Kaccha and Pakka House which is required to be demolished for the widening of the Bilaspur-Takhatpur-Mungeli Road (National Highway No. 130A). Subsequently, without following the due process of law, proceedings for acquiring the land of the petitioner were initiated, despite the fact that the petitioner holds a Patta (Annexure-P/2) issued in Case No. 47/A-66/2016-17 on 17.03.2017. He further submits that, 3 as per the return of the State, an award passed on 29.12.2020 and a supplementary award passed on 14.06.2021 (Annexure-R/1) includes the land of the petitioner. In the said award, compensation was assessed at Rs. 5,57,2026/- in respect of the house of the petitioner, but no further proceedings have been conducted, and no compensation has been calculated in respect of the aforesaid land granted to the petitioner under Patta (Annexure-P/2). He submits that since the petitioner is entitled to get compensation also in respect of aforesaid land, therefore, this petition may be disposed of at this stage with a direction to the respondents/Authorities to grant compensation in respect of the aforesaid land in accordance with the law within a stipulated time frame. 3. Per contra, the learned State counsel, referring to his return, submits that when the award was passed, the aforesaid land was recorded as government land in the government records, therefore, compensation was only assessed in respect of the house of the petitioner. He further submits that if Patta would have been granted to the petitioner, then it would have recorded in Revenue document, but it was not so, therefore, the petitioner is not entitled to get compensation in respect of land also. 4. Learned counsel for Union of India/respondents No. 5 and 6 have also filed their return. Mr. Ramakant Mishra, learned DSGI, submits that since the Patta (Annexure-P/2) of said land issued in favour of the petitioner was an Abadi Patta, as such said land itself is government land. As the land is acquired for a public purpose, the petitioner cannot be placed at par with the owner of the land, hence, he is not entitled to get compensation in respect of land. 5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record. 4 6. Undisputedly, vide the supplementary award dated 14.06.2021 (Annexure- R/1) filed by the State, compensation for the house of the petitioner has been calculated as Rs. 5,57,206/- which is duly mentioned in Serial No. 27 of the calculation sheet of the supplementary award. 7. On query, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has not received the compensation amount of his house till date. 8. It is also not in dispute that said land, having an area of 210 square meter, was granted to the petitioner vide Patta (Annexure-P/2) issued by the State Government on 17.03.2017. The contents of the Patta also show that Bhumi- Swami rights were assigned/granted to the petitioner. Further, though the aforesaid land is stated to be Abadi Bhumi, but since Bhumi Swami rights were granted to the petitioner and, as per the terms of the Patta, he was also granted the right to sell/transfer the land, the petitioner cannot be treated as an encroacher of the said land rather he accrued rights at par with the original land owner. 9. In a Full Bench decision of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh in the case of Land Acquisition Officer-cum-Revenue Divisional Officer and Ors Vs. Mekala Pandu and others (AIR 2004 ANDHRA PRADESH 250 FULL BENCH), while dealing with a similar issue, the following question arose for consideration: "Whether the claimants are entitled to payment of compensation under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short 'the Act') when the assigned lands are resumed by the Government for a public purpose ?" 10. The Full Bench of High Court of Andhra Pradesh has decided the aforesaid issue and made following observation at Para 109 which is reproduced hereunder for ready reference:- 5 "109. In the circumstances, we hold that the assignees of the Government lands are entitled to payment of compensation equivalent to the full market value of the land and other benefits on par with full owners of the land even in cases where the assigned lands are taken possession of by the State in accordance with the terms of grant or patta, though such resumption is for a public purpose. We further hold that even in cases where the State does not invoke the covenant of the grant or patta to resume the land for such public purpose and resorts to acquisition of the land under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, the assignees shall be entitled to compensation as owners of the land and for all other consequential benefits under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. No condition incorporated in patta/deed of assignment shall operate as a clog putting any restriction on the right of the assignee to claim full compensation as owner of the land. " 11. During course of argument, learned counsel for the petitioner informed that the aforesaid judgment has been affirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Case of A.P. Industrial Infrastructure Corpn Ltd. Vs. Ramesh Singh and Ors (Civil Appeal No.7904-7912/2012) connected with Land Acquisition Officer/RDO and Ors Vs. Mekala Pandu & Ors (Civil Appeal Nos.9317- 9321/2012) and other connected matters. 12. Reverting to the facts of the present case, the Patta (Annexure-P/2) was granted to the petitioner on 17.03.2017 assigned Bhumiswami rights to the petitioner on said land. Hence, he cannot be treated as an encroacher, as such even if the land is not recorded in the revenue records in his name, he is entitled to payment of compensation against subject acquisition. 13. Thus, in light of the aforesaid judgment in Mekala Pandu (Supra) which is also affirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and as discussed in the 6 preceding paragraphs, the Patta (Annexure-P/2) itself grants the petitioner rights on par with a Bhumiswami rather than encroacher. Therefore, he is entitled to get compensation for said land. Consequently, this petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondent/Authorities to complete the necessary proceedings for the grant of compensation to the petitioner in respect of the Patta land (Annexure-P/2) issued to him for the land bearing Khasra No. 722, admeasuring 210 Sq. Mtr as compensation for the petitioner's superstructure has already been determined by the respondents. 14. The respondent/Authorities are also directed to complete the aforementioned proceedings expeditiously, preferably within a period of 90 days from the date of receipt/submission of copy of this order. 15. Further, this Court on 25.02.2021 observed in favour of the petitioner that "no demolition of the superstructure shall be carried out in respect of the house of the petitioner, and the petitioner shall not be forcibly evicted from the house in question till the next date of hearing." The said interim protection granted by this Court in favour of the petitioner shall remain effective till compliance of this order. 16. Both the parties are directed to cooperate with each other ensuring compliance of this order. 17. With the aforesaid directions and observations, this writ petition stands disposed of. Sd/- (Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi) Judge Ajay