NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR WPC No. 5494 of 2022

1. Shankh Deo Mishra S/o Late Jagbandhu Mishra Aged About 61 Years R/o W. No. 10, Gharghoda District Raigarh Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh ---- Petitioner Versus

1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through Collector, District Raigarh Chhattisgarh., District : Raigarh, Chhattisgarh

2. Union Of India Through Secretary, Ministry Of Railways , Rail Bhawan Rafi Marg, New Delhi.

3. Chief Engineer South Eastern Central Railways , Bilaspur , District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh.

4. Deputy Chief Engineer South Eastern Central Railways , Raigarh , District Raigarh Chhattisgarh.

5. Land Acquisition Officer /sdo Gharghoda, District Raigarh.

---- Respondents For Petitioner : Mr. Ishan Verma, Advocate. For State : Mr. Vikas Shrivastava, P.L.

For Respondent 2 to 4 : Mr. Ramakant Mishra, ASG.

Hon'ble Shri Justice P. Sam Koshy

Order On Board

13.12.2022

1. Aggrieved by the inaction on the part of the respondent No. 5 in not concluding the proceedings initiated by him for passing of a supplementary award in the acquisition proceedings in which the original award was passed on 30.05.2015, the present writ petition has been filed.

2. The facts of the case are that the petitioner’s private property stood acquired by the respondents for the purpose of laying of railway track. The award was originally passed on 30.05.2015. The Petitioner’s property situates in Khasra Nos. 357/1 and 357/8 measuring 1.424 hectare of which measuring 0.643 hectare stood acquired by the respondent No.5 and for which the petitioner has also been compensated.

3. However, subsequently the petitioner came to know that there are certain additional land also which stood acquired in the process, which does not find place in the award, to which he approached the authorities concerned. The authorities vide a report submitted by the Patwari after scrutiny and verification of the land which stood acquired, found that the additional land to the extent of 0.376 hectare was also taken over by the respondent No. 5 and the said portion of land has got skipped from the award and for which the petitioner is entitled for compensation. The matter was thereafter placed before the Sub Divisional Officer, the respondent No. 5- the Land Acquisition Officer who has initiated the proceedings for passing of a supplementary award vide proceedings dated 13.08.2021. However there has been no further development and since it is more than a year, the petitioner is compelled to approach this Court.

4. Learned Assistance Solicitor General appearing for Respondents No.

2 to 4 submits that from the report of (Annexure P/4) submitted by the Patwari, it appears that certain land in excess to the award stands utilized by the railway in the process of construction and laying of the track. Since the Sub Divisional Officer has already initiated proceedings, the Railway Authorities shall take appropriate steps in- terms- of the supplementary award, if any, to be passed by the concerned Land Acquisition Officer. That in case, if ultimately compensation is quantified, the Railway Authorities shall be making necessary compliance in terms of the award.

5. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Vidya Devi Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and others, 2020 (2) SCC 569 has in very categorical terms held that under the constitutional right under Article 300A, no person can be deprived of his property save by authority of or procedures established by law. It has been further held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that it is the obligation upon the agency acquiring the property to pay compensation. Even though it is not expressly included in Article 300A but it has to be safely inferred that way. So far as the delay part is concerned, in the very same judgment the Hon'ble Supreme Court has also held that delay and laches cannot be a ground for denying a person an appropriate compensation for the land of his which stood taken over by the Govt.. Further also that there can be no period