Petitioners Must Prove Title for Compensation on 'Shamilat Charagah' Land Acquired Decades Ago: Chhattisgarh HC Cites Land Revenue Code - 2025-04-30

Chhattisgarh High Court Denies Compensation Claim for 'Shamilat Charagah' Land Acquired Over 20 Years Ago, Citing Lack of Title Proof

BILASPUR: The High Court of Chhattisgarh has dismissed a batch of writ petitions filed by villagers seeking compensation for land acquired over two decades ago, ruling that they failed to establish ownership title over the land classified as 'Shamilat Charagah' (common grazing land). Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad held that proof of title is paramount for claiming compensation, even if the acquisition process dates back to 1995-1998.

Case Background

The petitioners, led by Kunjbhuwan Sahu in the lead case (WPC No. 1999 of 2018), challenged the land acquisition proceedings initiated in 1995 for establishing a 400/200 KV Electric Sub-Centre for the Power Grid Corporation of India Limited (PGCIL) in Village Janjgiri, District Durg. An award determining compensation was passed on January 2, 1998.

The petitioners claimed that the acquired land belonged to them or their forefathers, and despite possession being taken under emergency provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, they never received compensation over the subsequent 20 years. They sought the acquisition proceedings to be declared lapsed under Section 24 of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, due to non-payment of compensation, return of their land, and compensation for its utilisation and prolonged harassment.

Arguments Presented

Petitioners' Counsel (Shri N.K. Malaviya): * Argued that the land, though pooled and known as 'Charagah', was effectively owned by the petitioners/their ancestors. * Contended that compensation was never offered or tendered, making the acquisition liable to lapse under Section 24 of the 2013 Act. * Stated that the Land Acquisition Officer failed to ascertain the actual beneficiaries and disburse the awarded amount (Rs. 39,30,416/-). * Highlighted that possession was taken using urgency clauses, yet compensation remained unpaid for 20 years despite representations.

Respondents' Counsel (State - Shri Suyashdhar Badgaiya; PGCIL - Shri Abhishek Sinha): * Raised objections based on the inordinate delay of 20 years in approaching the court (citing Mutha Associates v. State of Maharashtra ). * Argued that Section 24 of the 2013 Act was inapplicable as possession had already been taken (citing Indore Development Authority v. Manoharlal ). * Crucially contended that the petitioners failed to establish ownership; the land was recorded as "Shamilat Charagah," which, under the Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code, vests with the State. * Pointed out that previous court directions (WP No. 2040/1999) made compensation conditional on proving ownership with revenue records, which the petitioners failed to do. * Stated an official inquiry did not find the petitioners' or their ancestors' names linked to ownership. * Argued the petitioners lacked locus standi as they couldn't demonstrate a legal right or prove they were aggrieved persons (citing Aivaj Dewangan v. State of Chhattisgarh ).

Court's Analysis and Findings

Justice Prasad focused on the fundamental question of whether the petitioners held title to the acquired land. The Court observed that the petitioners relied on old revenue records (1931-32) where ancestors' names were noted, but the land itself was designated as "Shamilat Gochar."

The Court elucidated the legal status of such land: > "From the documents, it seems that the land in question is recorded as charagah land which cannot be said to be land belonging to the petitioners or their forefathers on the basis of their title... Shamilat gochar land means common grazing land or land which is traditionally used for grazing livestock, i.e., owned by the village community (gram sabha, gram panchayat) and it is intended for common use of the villagers... These lands are typically owned by gram sabha or gram panchayat and it is not private owned land."

Referring to Sections 57 and 237 of the Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code, the Court affirmed that such common lands are State property.

> "As defined in the various authorities, shamilat charagah/shamilat deh/pasture land, denotes any grazing field and if any land is reserved for common grazing field it cannot be a property of any individual person even though name of one person is recorded. It is identical to a Nistari Land which is for the benefit of entire society."

The Court concluded that the petitioners failed to provide cogent evidence establishing their or their forefathers' title over the "Shamilat Charagah" land.

> "Since there is no document to suggest that the land in question belongs to the forefathers of the petitioners or the petitioners, the petitioners cannot claim any relief in respect of acquisition and compensation. Unless and until cogent evidence in respect of ownership and title is produced, the petitioners cannot be held to be title holders of the land..."

The Court reasoned that this lack of established title was likely why compensation, though calculated in the 1998 award, was never disbursed. Since the primary condition of ownership was not met, the Court deemed it unnecessary to delve into the issues of delay or the applicability of Section 24 of the 2013 Act.

Final Decision

Finding that the petitioners could not establish their ownership title over the acquired "Shamilat Charagah" land, which is legally considered State or community property, the High Court dismissed all the writ petitions. The ruling underscores the necessity for landowners to provide clear proof of title when claiming compensation for acquired land, particularly for lands designated for common use.

Date of Order: February 20, 2025

Bench: Hon’ble Shri Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad