Executive Engineer, C.G. Grih Nirman Mandal Division-1 Raipur v. Deepak Kumar
NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR FAM No. 103 of 2017
Versus
1. Sanjay Singh S/o Shri Lambodar Singh Thakur, R/o Santoshi Chowk, Kushalpur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh, Through Special Power Of Attorney- Purushottam Sharma, Aged About 60 Years, S/o Jainarayan Sharma, R/o Tatibandh, Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh ...............(Applicant)
2. State of Chhattisgarh, Through Collector, Raipur, District FAM No. 108 Of 2017
1. Deepak S/o Shri Lambodar Singh Thakur, R/o Santoshi Chowk, Kushalpur Raipur, Distt.- Raipur, Chhattisgarh .............. (Applicant) FAM No. 106 Of 2017
1. Harjeet Singh S/o Shri Tek Singh, R/o Ramkund Raipur, Prince Garment Vivekanand Ashram, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh
2. Jogendra Singh S/o Shri Tek Singh, R/o Ramkund Raipur, Prince Garment Vivekanand Ashram, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh ..............(Applicants)
3. State Of Chhattisgarh, Through Collector Raipur, District FAM No. 112 Of 2017 Chhattisgarh Grih Nirman Mandal, Division 1, Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh.
1. Sanjay Sharma Shri B. N. Sharma, R/o Near Stadium Kota, Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh.
2. State Of Chhattisgarh Through- Collector, Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh.
FAM No. 104 Of 2017
1. Deepak Kumar S/o Shri Gurumukh Das, R/o Sindhi Colony, Ganjpara, Nayapara, Rajim, Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh ................(Applicant)
FAM No. 107 Of 2017
1. Amit Jivan S/o Shri Lakhiram Jivan, R/o Qtr. No. M-7, Rajeev Nagar, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh, Through Special Power Of Attorney- Purushottam Sharma, Aged About 60 Years, S/o Jainarayan Sharma, R/o Tatibandh, Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh ...............(Applicant) For Appellants Shri Sanjay Patel, Advocate For Respondent-State Shri R. K. Mishra, Dy. AG For Private Respondents Shri Kishore Bhaduri, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra Hon'ble Shri Justice Arvind Singh Chandel Order On Board By Prashant Kumar Mishra J.
05/07/2017 I. A. No.1 These are the applications for condonation of delay in filing the present appeals.
Shri Bhaduri, learned counsel for the private respondents would not object to the grant of condonation of delay in the appeals.
In view of no objection by the respondents, the delay in filing the appeal is condoned.
Record of the trial Court is available, therefore, with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, the appeals are heard finally at motion stage.
1.
The batch of first appeals (M) are arising out of the orders passed by the Reference Court answering the reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 to enhance the amount of compensation from Rs.16,40,000/- per hectare to Rs.1924 per square metre.
2.
The land in question is located at Village Hirapur, Tehsil and District Raipur. Admittedly, FAM Nos.25, 26, 27, 28 & 29 of 2010, arising out of the same award and different reference proceedings initiated by different land holders, have been decided by the Coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 30.10.2014. Copy of the order has been annexed with the preliminary objection filed by the respondents in FAM No.107/2017.
3.
Shri Patel, learned counsel for the appellants would make strenuous effort to argue that the present batch of appeals have some difference than the above mentioned FAMs decided by the Coordinate Bench. However, after hearing learned counsel for the parties, we are of the considered opinion that since the present batch of appeals arise out of the same award and the
land in question is also diverted land, we cannot take a different view of the matter than the one already taken by the Coordinate Bench.
More so, when the previous order has not been assailed by the appellants herein by preferring SLP before the Supreme Court, therefore, Shri Patel's effort to distinguish on the ground that the land involved in the present batch of appeals is not on the road but is located inside, therefore, it has lesser market value than the land involved in the previous batch of FAMs has no force, because on perusal of the document (Ex-P-1), which is the letter issued by the State Government fixing the price of diverted land in the locality in question without differentiating between the land on the road and the land inside the road, it is found that once the land in question is located in a bigger area for which a particular rate has been fixed by the State Government, the rate applicable to the entire area would be applicable.
In our considered view, the Reference Court has not committed any illegality in allowing the same enhanced rate in favour of the respondents which was allowed in favour of the respondents of FAM Nos.25, 26, 27, 28 & 29 of 2010. 4.
There is no substance in the present batch of appeals. They deserve to be and are hereby dismissed.
Sd/- Sd/- Judge Judge Prashant Kumar Mishra Arvind Singh Chandel Nirala