Komal v. State Of Chhattisgarh

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR WPC No. 1596 of 2019

1. Komal S/o Arjun Aged About 45 Years R/o Village Saradih, Tahsil Dabhara, District Janjgir Champa Chhattisgarh

2. Shrikant Dani S/o Lochan Prasad Aged About 47 Years R/o Village Sakrali, Tahsil Dabhra, District Janjgir Champa Chhattisgarh ---- Petitioners

Versus

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

2. Collector District Janjgir Champa Chhattisgarh

3. Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue) Cum Land Acquisition Officer Dabhra, District Janjgir Champa Chhattisgarh

4. Chief Executive Officer Division Of Water Resources Dabhra, District Janjgir Champa Chhattisgarh ---- Respondents For Petitioners :

Shri Tarun Dansena, Advocate For Respondents/State :

Shri Aditya Bhardwaj, PL Hon'ble Shri Justice Goutam Bhaduri Order On Board 03/05/2019

1. Heard.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the petitioners' land have been acquired for irrigation project for reservoir and the 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 set-aside 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 petitioners shall move a representation before the concerned Collector

(Land Acquisition) within a period of 4 weeks from today. Thereafter, the said Authority 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/- Goutam Bhaduri Judge Ashu