JUDGMENT

P. R. Ramachandra Menon, C.J. - Finding rendered by the learned Single Judge in Contempt Case (C) No. 289 of 2008, holding the Respondents/Contemnors guilty of the offence of contempt, for not complying with the directions given as per judgment dated 02.01.2008 in Writ Petition No.1177 of 1985 (preferred by the writ petitioners/landowners originally before the High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Jabalpur and later transferred to this Court after formation of the State of Chhattisgarh), is put to challenge in MA No. 61 of 2013. The grievance of the writ petitioners / land owners who lost the land, nearly four decades ago, on acquisition by the Raipur Development Authority and are still running from pillar to post for getting the balance amount of compensation and also the alternate plots, despite the judgement dated 02.01.2008 passed in Writ Petition No. 1177 of 1985, is projected in Writ Petition (C) No.1308 of 2018, seeking adequate compensation and such other reliefs. For convenience of reference, the claimants are referred to as 'landowners' and the opposite side is described as 'Raipur Development Authority' (for short, 'RDA'), apart from the State (State of Chhattisgarh) shown as the 1st Respondent in the writ petition.

2. The case has got a chequered history. The RDA, as part of implementation of several Housing Development Schemes, notified 'Shailendra Nagar Scheme No.27' in the year 1977 and identified various extents of land to be acquired, which included lands belonging to the late Ram Gopal Sharma, his two sons and four daughters, situated in Khasra No. 293, P.C. No.114, R.I. Circle - Raipur, Block - Dharshiwa, Tehsil and District - Raipur (C.G.). Infact, the land was sought to be acquired offering to pay appropriate extent of compensation and also to allot building sites/plots under the notified Scheme to the landowners, in accordance with Section 56 of the Madhya Pradesh Nagar Tatha Gram Nivesh Adhiniyam, 1973 (for short, 'the Act, 1973'). It was accordingly, that different agreements were executed on 16.09.1978 and 17.10.1978 with different landowners, by virtue of which the land was stated as being acquired for a sum of Rs.20,000/- per acre (under protest), effecting an advance payment and agreeing to pay the actual consideration for the land as may be settled by the State Government under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, 'the LA Act, 1894'). Based on the agreement, the RDA decided to allot 22 plots of specified extent to the landowners and agreements of exchange were also executed in this regard. As per the above deeds and proceedings, the land owners were to pay 'development charges' in respect of the plots being allotted to them and accordingly, a sum of Rs.92,950/- was deducted towards the development charges from the compensation payable to the landowners.

3. Later, by June, 1984, the landowners came to know that the RDA, instead of honouring the commitment as per the agreements, by paying the compensation as agreed and instead of allotting the plots already earmarked under the Scheme to them, diverted the said plots and allotted it to strangers (Respondents No.3 to 20), which made them to prefer a complaint in July, 1984 to the Chairman of the RDA. As the RDA did not pay any heed to the claim put forth by the landowners, they approached the High Court by filing Writ Petition No.1177 of 1985, seeking for the following reliefs :

(a) A Writ of and/or in the nature of prohibition do issue, commanding and directing the Respondent No. 1 from handing over possession of 22 building sites/plots described in Annexure-16 to the Respondent No. 3 to 20 or to any other person/persons Whatsoever.

(b) A Writ of and/or in the nature of mandamus do issue, commanding and directing the respondent No. 1 to reallot 22 building sites/plots better described in Annexure-16 to the petitioners.