2026 Supreme(Online)(Chh) 23309

IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
RAKESH MOHAN PANDEY, J
Ramanuj Sharma – Appellant
Versus
The Municipal Corporation Bhilai – Respondent
FA No. 128 of 2019

Where possession of land was taken without due process and an appellate order restored de jure possession, but public construction made restitution impossible, relief can be moulded to compensation under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.

Headnote:(A) Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 - Sections 10(1), 10(3), 10(6) - Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Repeal Act, 1999 - Section 4 - Land Acquisition Act, 1894 - Constitution of India - Article 300-A - Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Section 96 - Moulding of relief - Even void order must be declared void by competent forum - Proceedings pending before repeal are saved - Continuation of proceedings through writ petition and appeal - Limitation - Suit not barred when cause of action arose from subsequent construction - Compensation for land taken without due process - Market value as on date of possession.

(B) Principles of moulding relief - Court can modify relief based on changed circumstances to shorten litigation and do complete justice - Right to property is human right and constitutional right - Obligation to pay compensation inferred from Article 300-A - When possession taken without due process, court can direct compensation as on date of possession - De jure possession restored by appellate authority - De facto possession not possible due to public construction - Compensation under Land Acquisition Act, 1894.

(C) Appeal - Scope - Trial court failed to consider order of appellate authority which attained finality - Reversal justified.

Facts of the case:
The appellants/plaintiffs filed a suit for declaration of title, demolition of illegal construction, possession and permanent injunction in respect of land declared surplus under the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976. Possession was allegedly taken by the State in 1988. The plaintiffs challenged the proceedings by filing a writ petition in 1997, which was disposed of with liberty to approach the Competent Authority. The Competent Authority dismissed their application, but the Additional Commissioner, Raipur, allowed the appeal on 29.10.2011, setting aside the order and directing restoration of the plaintiffs' names in revenue records. The State challenged this order but it was dismissed/withdrawn. Meanwhile, the respondents constructed a bus stand on the suit land. The trial court dismissed the suit, holding that possession was validly taken and the suit barred by limitation. The plaintiffs appealed.

Findings of Court:
The High Court held that the order dated 29.10.2011 of the Additional Commissioner attained finality as it was not set aside by any superior court. It cannot be ignored on the ground of lack of jurisdiction without a declaration from a competent forum. The suit was within limitation as the cause of action arose when construction started ignoring the said order. However, since a bus stand had already been built at public expense, the relief of possession was moulded to compensation. The plaintiffs were held entitled to compensation under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, to be determined based on the fair market value of the land in the year 1988, when possession was taken.

Issues: (i) Whether the trial court rightly dismissed the suit ignoring the order of the Additional Commissioner dated 29.10.2011? (ii) Whether the relief sought could be moulded from possession to compensation?

Ratio Decidendi: An order passed by an authority, even if void, must be declared void by a competent forum; parties cannot ignore it. The order of the Additional Commissioner being final, the plaintiffs had de jure possession. However, to avoid wasteful public expense, the court moulded the relief to compensation, relying on principles from J. Ganapatha, Raj Kumar Johri, and Bernard Francis Joseph Vaz. The right to property under Article 300-A includes an obligation to pay compensation. Where land is taken without due process, compensation must be determined as on the date of possession.

Result: Appeal allowed. Judgment and decree of the trial court set aside. The respondents are directed to determine and pay compensation to the plaintiffs under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, based on the fair market value of the land in the year 1988.