In the exercise of the right over any land, the rights of any person are infringed by the occupation or disturbance of the surface of such land, the Government or its assignee shall pay to such person compensation for such infringement as upheld by the High Court of Chhattisgarh through the learned bench led by Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal in the case of Nokhram, Ramayan Sahu and Ors. v. State of Chhattisgarh and Ors. (Writ Appeal No.72 of 2021)
The brief facts of the case are that 19 persons including the present petitioners had filed a writ petition being with the grievance that their lands had been acquired by the respondent No.2 for the purpose of leasing out to the respondent No.4 without any payment of compensation and without any rehabilitation programme. By an order dated 20.02.2003, this Court disposed of the aforesaid writ petition providing that the petitioners may file a representation to the Collector along with the copy of the writ petition and copy of the order passed and in the event of filing of any such representation, the Collector would pass appropriate orders after hearing the petitioners. It was also provided that if aggrieved by any of the orders passed, the petitioners would be entitled to pursue remedies as may be available in law. The writ petitioners had also filed a writ petition, praying from restraining the respondents from interfering with the lands of the petitioners. On representation being made by the petitioners, the same came to be disposed of on 19.09.2003 as infructuous. Subsequent thereto, this writ petition, out of which the instant appeal arises, came to be filed with prayers to issue a writ of mandamus directing the respondent No.4 to provide employment to the petitioners and also to pay compensation to them at the current rate of land of the area.
After considering the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and perusal of the materials on record, the Hon’ble Court held, “The award dated 20.06.2000 recites that the opposite parties therein are Tiharu and 46 others. The present writ petition was filed by only 7 writ petitioners, out of whom, one has chosen not to prefer any appeal. In the aforesaid backdrop of factual events, when the award has not been challenged at any point of time, determination of compensation afresh, in the considered opinion of this Court, does not arise. 21. In view of the above discussion, we are of the considered opinion that no interference is called for with regard to the order passed by the learned Single Judge. However, before parting of the records, we observe that if the 9 amounts deposited are fetching any interest, compensation amount shall be paid along with such accrued interest. With the aforesaid modification of the order of the learned Single Judge, writ appeal stands dismissed.”
Judgment reviewed by Vandana Ragwani