MAHAVEER Vs. STATE OF C G
LAWS(CHH)-2005-2-18
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH
Decided on February 11,2005

MAHAVEER Appellant
VERSUS
State Of C G Respondents

JUDGEMENT

- (1.) THE Petitioner has preferred this writ petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India with prayer to command the respondents to release the land of the petitioner from the acquisition proceedings.
(2.) BRIEF facts leading to filing of this writ petition are that the petitioner's father was owner of the agricultural land situated along with the bank of river Shivnath and in respect of which land acquisition case No. 7A/82, year 89-90, was registered by the Land Acquisition Officer, Durg. On 16th June, 1989 notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act was issued and, thereafter, notification under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act was issued on 22-12-1989. On 15-1-90 the father of the petitioner appeared before the Land Acquisition Officer and filed the claim. Subsequently, on 21-1-1991, the Land Acquisition Officer passed an award of Rs. 2,59,512/- and amount of award was ordered to be deposited and that amount was not deposited till 10-2-95 on which date only amount was deposited. Even though in the Revenue Record the land is said to have been vested in the Government, but as on date the petitioner still continues with the physical possession of the land, the land was originally acquired for water project, but the petitioner's land is in excess from the requirement of the respondents and the said land is still lying vacant even after the completion of the project. Thereafter, the petitioner learnt that the Municipal Corporation is establishing a garden on the land, which the petitioner came to know through newspaper, which was not for the original purpose and compensation was awarded. Return has been filed on behalf of respondent No. 3 in which it has been mentioned that the land has been finally vested in the respondents for water supply project, compensation has already been awarded and same was deposited on 10-2-95. The father of the petitioner did not challenge the acquisition proceeding and allowed the same to become final, and possession has already been handed over to the Municipal Corporation, Durg, as the land vested finally with the respondents as per Section 16 of the Land Acquisition Act and the writ petition is not maintainable. It is denied that the petitioner is in physical possession of the acquired land. Total area 5.17 acre of land was acquired including the petitioner's father's land and pump house, distribution point and small electric power house were constructed on the part of acquired land and in the remaining part of land garden for general public (adjacent to water supply system) has been developed by Municipal Corporation, Durg. It is also for the public purpose. It is incorrect to say that the land acquired was in excess of requirement of the corporation.
(3.) I have heard learned counsel for the parties.;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.