Durga Prasad Dubey v. State Of Chhattisgarh

NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR WPC No. 469 of 2019 • Durga Prasad Dubey, S/o Late Jagdish Dubey, Aged About 50 Years, R/o Shivghat Matachoura, Sarkanda, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh ---- Petitioner

Versus

1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Department Of Revenue, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, New Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh

2. Collector District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh., District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh

3. Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue) Cum - Competent Authority National Highway No. 130 (New No. 111) Bilaspur, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh., District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh

4. National Highway Authority Of India, Through Its Director, Project Execution Unit, Bilaspur, District- Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh ---- Respondents For Petitioner Shri Jeet Patel, Advocate For Respondent-State Shri Rahul Jha, GA For Respondent-NHAI Shri B. Gopa Kumar, Advocate Hon'ble Justice Mr. Prashant Kumar Mishra Order On Board 18/02/2019 1.

Learned counsel for the petitioner is permitted to implead NHAI as party respondent No.4.

2.

Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner's land has been acquired for Bilaspur-Katghora National Highway Road. However, while assessing compensation, multiplier of 1 has been used, whereas the Division Bench of this

Court in WPC No.1649 of 2017 (Smt. Anita Agrawal Vs. State of Chhattisgarh and others) and other connected petitions has setaside the Notification dated 04.12.2014, applying multiplier factor of 1 with direction to the State Government to issue fresh Notification indicating the multiplier factors in terms of the guidelines laid down in the statute and the judgment of the Division Bench.

3.

In Smt. Anita Agrawal (supra), the following has been held by the Division Bench in paras 10, 11 & 12 :

10.Further, the question is not about the power of the State Government to issue such notification, the question is the manner in which such power has been exercised which can also be levelled as mindless exercise of power since by restricting the multiplier of factor to 1.00, the State is obviously trying to treat all land owners as one. This will deny to the poor land owners of the remote villagers, fair compensation and rehabilitation, which is the primary object behind the new Land Acquisition Act of 2013. 11.Drawing analogy from the view taken by the Division Bench of Bombay High Court, which we have quoted with due approval, Court is left with no option but to strike down the notification dated 04.12.2014 contained in Annexure P/1.

A direction is issued that keeping in mind the legal position which emerges, the State Government will issue a fresh notification indicating the multiplier factors, in terms of the guidelines laid down in the statute and the judgment. 12.It goes without saying that all awards and compensations in relation to not only these Petitioners but all such persons whose lands have been acquired and a multiplier of 1.00 has been used for calculating the compensation, the same will be required to be revised and revisited in light of the new notification, which is required to be notified by the State Government, on priority."

4.

In view of the above, the present writ petition is disposed of with direction that the petitioner shall move a representation before the

concerned Collector (Land Acquisition) within a period of 4 weeks from today. Thereafter, the said Collector shall decide the representation within 10 weeks from the date of the State Government's fresh Notification in terms of the directions issued by the Division Bench.

5.

The writ petition stands disposed of.

Sd/- Prashant Kumar Mishra Judge Nirala