The court emphasized the constitutional right to property and the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, in ensuring fair compensation and interest for land acquisition.

1. Since common facts and question of law are involved in these petitions, thus, they are being disposed of by this common order.

2. By these petitions, the petitioners seek a direction to the respondents to make payment of compensation to the petitioners in lieu of acquisition of their respective land and to pay the interest on the amount of compensation at the rate of 15% as per section 34 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short 'the Act, 1894').

3. The facts, in brief, as projected by the respective petitioners, are that the petitioners' land being survey number 369/3, 368, area 0.03 and 0.07 acre {in W.P.(C) No. 848/2011 (for short 'the first petition ')} and 369/2 area 0.03 acre, {in W.P.(C) No. 1034/2011 (for short 'the second petition ')} situated in village Jagdalla, District Janjgir-Champa were acquired by the State Government without initiating any process lawfully for the construction of Champa-Jagdalla, Kurda Road. The petitioners tiled applications for grant of compensation in lieu of acquisition of their respective lands. On receipt of their applications, the respondent No.3 directed the respondent No.4 to enquire into the matter and send the proposal within 7 days vide letter dated 09.12.2005 and 21.03.2007. (Annexure P/3 and P/4 to the first petition). Thereafter, the respondent No.5 submitted the case and proposal report to the respondent No.4 on 18.09.2007 (Annexure P/5 in the first petition) and on 16.10.2007 (Annexure P/5 in second petition). After receipt of the proposal from the office of the respondent No.4 and 5, the Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue) Champa directed the respondent No.4 to deposit 80% of the total compensation amount as per the provisions of the Act. The respondent No.4, in turn replied that since no funds were available, the demand of the petitioners was refused vide communication dated 29.10.2007. Again, on 17.08.2009, after lapse of more than 17 months, the respondent No.4 deposited the 80% of the compensation amount before the respondent No. 3 in the form of cheque, but the respondent No.3 did not pay the said amount to the petitioners. Thus, these petitions.

4. Shri Shrivastava, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would submit that the impugned action of the respondent authorities is illegal, arbitrary and against the well settled principles of law as the respondent authorised have deprived the petitioners of their lawful right of getting compensation, which was to be paid to the petitioners on account of acquisition of their respective hinds. The respondent authorities have not followed the provisions of the Act, 1894 in its letter and spirit as the lands in question have been acquired by the authorities without affording proper opportunity of hearing to the petitioners, without obtaining consent of the petitioners or without issuing any notification as required under the provisions of the Act, 1894.

5. On the other hand, Shri Moorthy, learned counsel appearing for the State/respondents would submit that the land acquisition proceedings had already been initiated by the respondents and estimated amount of compensation has already been deposited with the Land Acquisition Officer. The Land Acquisition Officer, issued a memo for publication of notification under section 4(1) of the Act, 1894. Therefore, it is clear that the determination of compensation and passing of the award is under process. Shri Moorthy would further submit that as and when the proceedings of land acquisition is completed, the compensation would be paid to the respective petitioners on the basis of the award passed by the Land Acquisition Officer. Shri Moorthy would next submit that since the land acquisition proceeding is under process, thus, this Court while exercising its power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India cannot assess the compensation in lieu of acquisition of land. Thus, this petition deserves to be dismissed. Lastly, he would submit that compensation amount would be payable