The main legal point established in the judgment is that the possession of property without due process of law violates Article 300A of the Constitution of India, and acquisition proceedings must adhere to the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.

JUDGMENT :

RAJENDRA CHANDRA SINGH SAMANT, J.

1. This petition has been brought praying for issuance of appropriate writ against the respondent authorities, directing them to initiate proceeding for making acquisition of land belonging to the petitioners and also directing to determine compensation according to the present market value.

2. It is submitted by counsel for the petitioners that the father of the petitioners, namely, Dau Niranjanlal Gupta was owner of the land bearing khasra Nos. 967, 971, 975, 990/19 and 995/1, total measuring 3.62 acres, situated at Kasaridih Patwari Halka No. 64/1, Durg, District Durg. Father of the petitioners expired on 23.2.2010. Prior to that, the respondent authorities had taken possession of the land above-mentioned without drawing any acquisition proceeding and granting any compensation to the father of the petitioners. Later on, 2.81 acres of land was acquired by the respondent authorities in the year 1999 and 0.69 acres of land was returned to father of the petitioners. The remaining land, 0.12 acres is the disputed land, which is neither acquired nor returned to father of the petitioners. On the contrary, respondent No. 4 has constructed house and road on this land. Father of the petitioners filed an application before the respondent authorities praying for grant of compensation of 0.12 acres of disputed land. The respondent authorities without initiating any acquisition process have passed an order dated 26.2.2003 for payment of compensation of Rs. 30,974/- to father of the petitioners.

3. It is submitted by counsel for the petitioners that father of the petitioners received the compensation amount as ordered under protest and prayed for making a reference to the District Judge. The reference was presided by the learned Ninth Additional District Judge, Durg, District Durg in M.J.C. No. 4 of 2006 and by the order dated 9.5.2008 (Annexure-P/6), the petitioners were granted compensation of Rs. 1,39,93,792.92. The respondent authorities preferred an appeal before the High Court against the order of Reference Judge which has been decided finally by the judgment dated 2.12.2009 (Annexure-P/7), in which the amount of compensation was reduced to Rs. 50,70,542/-. The petitioners have received the compensation amount as ordered and they have filed SLP before the Supreme Court praying for enhancement of compensation, which is pending. The petitioners have made various representations before the respondent authorities praying for grant of appropriate compensation for 0.12 acres of land, but the same has not been considered and decided by the respondent authorities. It is further submitted that the acquisition of land without following the procedure as laid down under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 is violative of Article 300(A) of the Constitution of India. It is also submitted that by a memo dated 31.5.2021, the Land Acquisition Officer, Durg has directed respondent No. 5 to initiate the proceeding for land acquisition of 0.12 acres of land in possession of respondent No. 5. It is not disputed by the respondent authorities that 0.12 acres of land has not been acquired till date, therefore, it is prayed that appropriate writs may be issued. The petitioners have placed reliance on the judgment of Supreme Court in the case of Anand Singh and Another vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Others, (2010) 11 SCC 242 and on the judgment of this Court in the case of Manoj Modi and Another vs. State of Chhattisgarh and Others, 2012 (3) CGLJ 629.

4. Learned State representing for respondents No. 1, 2 and 3 opposes the submissions made by counsel for the petitioners and submits that the Land Acquisition Officer has already communicated respondent No. 5 for initiating acquisition proceeding, therefore, appropriate order be passed.

5. Learned counsels for respondents No. 4 and 5 opposes the submissions made and submits that the present petition is filed after delay of 39 years. The land was acquired in the year 1974 wherea