-1-
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
Writ Petition (C) No . 1014 of 2016
Smt. Manju Devi D/o Manishankar Shukla, Aged About 45 Years
R/o 2nd Floor, Above The State Bank of India Personal Banking Branch,
Shanti Nagra, Ring Road- 2, Bilaspur Chhattisgarh.
---- Petitioner
Versus
1. State of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department of Udhyog,
Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Naya Raipur, Tahsil and District Raipur
Chhattisgarh.
2. Chhattisgarh State Industrial Development Corporation Limited, Through
Managing Director Udhyog Bhawan, 1st Floor, Telibandha, Raipur
Chhattisgarh 492006.
3. Sub Divisional Officer, Revenue-Cum-Land Acquisition Officer, Bilaspur,
Tahsil and District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh.
4. M/s. Anandi Builders R/o L-7, Vinoba Nagar, Bilaspur Chhattisgarh.
5. Municipal Corporation Bilaspur through Commissioner, Office of Municipal
Corporation Bilaspur, District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh.
6. State of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Department of Urban
Administration and Development, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal
Nagar, Nawa Raipur, District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh.
7. The Chief Secretary Government of Chhattisgarh, Mantralaya, Mahanadi
Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur, District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh.
---- Respondents
Writ Petition (C) No . 1553 of 2016
1. Smt. Abha Jaiswal W/o Dr. Badri Jaiswal, Aged About 63 Years
R/o In Front of Bihari Talkies, Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh.
2. Dr. Badri Jaiswal, S/o Late Ganesh Prasad Jaiswal, Aged About 63 Years
R/o In Front of Bihari Talkies Bilaspur Chhattisgarh.
---- Petitioners
Versus
1. State of Chhattisgarh through The Secretary, Department of Town and
Country Planning and Udyog Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Naya
Raipur, Tahsil and District Raipur Chhattisgarh.
2. Chhattisgarh State Industrial Development Corporation Limited. Through
Managing Director Udhyog Bhawan, 1st Floor, Telibandha, Raipur
Chhattisgarh 492006.
3. Sub Divisional Officer,Revenue Cum Land Acquisition Officer, Bilaspur,
Tahsil and District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh
4. M/s Anandi Builders,R/o L-7, Vinoba Nagar, Bilaspur Chhattisgarh.
5. Joint Director, Town & Country Planning Bilaspur Chhattisgarh.
6. Gram Panchayat (Now Nagar Panchayat), Tifra, Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh,
Through Chief Municipal Officer.
7. Municipal Corporation Bilaspur, Through - Commissioner, Office of
Municipal Corporation Bilaspur, District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh.
-2-
8. State of Chhattisgarh through Secretary, Department of Urban
Administration and Development, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal
Nagar, Nawa Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.)
9. The Chief Secretary Government of Chhattisgarh, Mantralaya, Mahanadi
Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.)
---- Respondents
Writ Petition (C) No . 1668 of 2016
1. Rajendra Prasad Jaiswal S/o Late Ganesh Prasad Jaiswal, Aged About 62
Years R/o Shankar Bhawan, Old High Court Road, Opposite State Bank of
India, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh.
---- Petitioner
Versus
1. State of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary Department of Udhyog,
Mahanadi Bhawan, New Raipur, P. S. Rakhi, District Raipur Chhattisgarh.
2. Chhattisgarh State Industrial Development Corporation Limited, Through
Managing Director, Udhyog Bhawan, 1st Floor, Telibandha, Raipur,
Chhattisgarh.
3. Sub Divisional Officer, Revenue- Cum- Land Acquisition Officer, Bilaspur,
Tahsil and District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh.
---- Respondents
Writ Petition (C) No. 2116 of 2016
1. Subhash Jaiswal S/o Late Shri Ganesh Prasad Jaiswal, Aged About 53
Years R/o Bharti Nagar, Near Ayappa Mandir Bilaspur Chhattisgarh.
---- Petitioner
Versus
1. State of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department of Udyog
Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya Naya Raipur Tahsil and District Raipur
Chhattisgarh.
2. Chhattisgarh State Industrial Development Corporation Limited, Through
Managing Director Udyogbhawan, 1st Floor, Telibanda, Raipur
Chhattisgarh.
3. Sub Divisional Officer, Revenue Cum Land Acquisition Officer, Bilaspur
Tehsil And District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh.
4. M/s Anandi builders, R/o L 7 Vinoba Nagar, Bilaspur Chhattisgarh.
5. Smt. Manju Devi D/o Mani Shankar Shukla, R/o 2nd Floor, Above the
State Bank Of India Personal Banking Branch Shanti Nagar, Ring Road, 2
Bilaspur Chhattisgarh.
---- Respondents
Writ Petition (C) No. 2118 of 2016
1. Subhash Jaiswal S/o Late Shri Ganesh Prasad Jaiswal Aged About 53
Years R/o Bharti Nagar, Near Ayappa Mandir Bilaspur Chhattisgarh.
---- Petitioner
Versus
1. State of Chhattisgarh Through the Secretary, Department of Udyog
Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya Naya Raipur Tahsil and District Raipur
Chhattisgarh.
-3-
2. Chhattisgarh State Industrial Development Corporation Limited, Through
Managing Director Udyog Bhawan, 1st Floor, Telibanda, Raipur
Chhattisgarh.
3. Sub Divisional Officer, Revenue Cum Land Acquisition Officer, Bilaspur
Tehsil and District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh.
4. M/s Anandi builders, R/o L-7 Vinoba Nagar, Bilaspur Chhattisgarh.
5. Smt. Manju Devi D/o Mani Shankar Shukla, R/o 2nd Floor, Above the
State Bank of India Personal Banking Branch Shanti Nagar, Ring Road, 2
Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh.
---- Respondents
____
For Petitioners : Shri B.P. Sharma, Shri Neeraj Choubey,
Shri Himanshu Sinha and Shri ML Sakat,
Advocates.
For State : Shri S.C. Verma, Advocate General along
with Shri Adil Minhaj, Govt. Advocate.
For CSIDC : Shri Kashif Shakeel, Advocate.
For Municipal Corporation : Shri K. Rohan, Advocate.
For Intervener : Shri Malay Shrivastava, Advocate.
Hon'ble Shri Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal
Judgment Reserved on 07.11.2023
Judgment Delivered on 30. 04.2024
1. All these writ petitions relates to one and common relief claimed by the
respective petitioners and the subject matter being similar in nature, they
are being heard and decided together by this common order.
2. For the sake of convenience, the relief claimed in each of the writ petitions
is being dealt with separately.
3. WPC No.1014 of 2016 has been filed by the petitioner Smt. Manju Devi
seeking a direction to the respondent authorities to firstly measure her
land and ascertain as to how much land of the petitioner is required for the
purpose of construction of approach road from Raipur-Bilaspur National
Highway-200 to Sector-D of Sirgitti industrial area (in short, approach road
from NH-200 to Sector-D road) and further a direction to the respondent
authorities not to disturb the possession of the petitioner over her land
bearing Khasra No.1369/2 and 1370/2 till due acquisition proceeding is
carried out by the State Govt. in accordance with law.
-4-
4. The petitioner Manju Devi has purchased the aforesaid lands bearing
Khasra No.1369/2 and 1370/2 area 1.50 Acre (65400 sq.ft.) situated at
village Tifra, Sheet No.45, Plot No.16, Tehsil and District Bilaspur through
registered sale deed dated 24.03.20011 from its owner Badri Prasad
Jaiswal and she came into possession of the same. After its purchase, the
name of the petitioner has been mutated in the revenue records.
Subsequent to purchase of said land by the petitioner, when a new High
Tech Bus Stand is constructed at Raipur Bilaspur NH-200 at Bilaspur, the
respondent No.2, Chhattisgarh State Industrial Development Corporation
(in short, CSIDC) has sent a proposal to the State Govt. for construction of
100 feet wide approach road from NH-200 to Sector-D, for which, 8.21
Acres of private land was proposed for acquisition for construction of the
said road. Out of 8.21 Acres of required land, 5.97 Acres of land has
already been acquired by the State Government and vide letter dated
27.02.2016, the respondent No.2 have made a request to acquire the rest
land. In the year, 2014, the respondents No.2 & 4 have started
construction of connecting road between NH-200 to Sector-D over the land
of the petitioner i.e. Khasra No.1369/2 and 1370/2 without there being any
acquisition of land or any payment of compensation. Thereafter, the
petitioner moved her representation not to start construction work of road
without proper acquisition of her land and payment thereof. Vide order
dated 04.03.2014, the respondent No.2 has directed the respondent No.4
to complete the road within 11 months and thereafter the respondent
authorities have started construction of road in a very speedy manner and
which came upto boundary of the petitioners land. The pole fixed by the
petitioner as boundary of her land were uprooted by the respondent No.4
and started again the patch work for construction of the road. Despite
repeated request by the petitioner for acquisition of her land under the
prevailing acquisition policy of the State Government, neither acquisition
-5-
proceedings were started nor compensation were determined by the
respondents. Therefore, under the compelling circumstances the petitioner
has filed the instant writ petition for aforesaid relief.
5. WPC 1553 of 2016 has been filed by the petitioner Smt. Abha Jaiswal and
Dr. Badri Prasad Jaiswal claiming the same relief as claimed in WPC
No.1014 of 2016 in respect of Khasra Nos. 1367/13, 1368/5 and 1367/01.
In addition, in this petition, the petitioners have also claimed to pay
compensation to them. The petitioner Badri Prasad Jaiswal purchased the
land bearing Khasra Nos. 1369/2 and 1370/2, Area 1.50 Acres through
registered sale deed dated 26.06.1975 from its owner and came into
possession of the same. Subsequently, another land bearing Khasra
No.1367/9 area 0.06 Acres was also purchased from its owner through the
registered sale deed dated 19.02.1980 which was adjoining to Bilaspur-
Raipur National Highway. On 04.01.1988, the petitioner No.1-Smt. Abha
Jaiswal purchased a land bearing Khasra No.1367/13 and 1368/5 total
area 0.28 Acres. The petitioners have mutated their names in the revenue
records after its purchase respectively and came into possession of the
same. The petitioner No.1 Abha Jaiswal is the wife of petitioner No.2-Badri
Prasad Jaiswal. Out of the total land of the petitioners, they have sold 1.50
Acres of land of Khasra No.1369/2 and 1370/2 to Smt. Manju Devi
(Petitioner in WPC No.1014 of 2016) through registered sale deed dated
04.11.2009 and delivered possession of the same. Thereafter, after
sending proposal to the State Govt, in the year 2014, the respondent
authorities started construction of connecting road between NH-200 to
Sector-D over the land of the petitioners i.e. Khasra No.1367/13, 1368/5
and 1367/9 without there being any acquisition of land or any payment of
compensation, as has been done in WPC No.1014 of 2016. Although the
land surrounding to the land of the petitioners have been acquired by the
-6-
respondent authorities. Thereafter, the petitioners have filed the instant
writ petition claiming aforesaid relief.
6. WPC No.1668 of 2016 has been filed by the petitioner Rajendra Prasad
Jaiswal claiming relief that the respondent authorities be directed to follow
the acquisition process in respect of petitioners land bearing Khasra
Nos.1369 and 1370 of PH No.111 and to grant adequate compensation to
the petitioner and further to stop the construction work of road over the
land of the petitioner for the loss caused to him. In this petition, the
petitioner Rajendra Prasad Jaiswal purchased the land bearing Khasra
No.1369 and 1370 situated at village Tifra, Tehsil and District Bilaspur
through the registered sale deed from its owner and get his name
recorded in the revenue records and came into possession. Thereafter, the
respondent started construction of connecting road between NH-200 to
Sector-D over the land of the petitioner i.e. Khasra No.1369 and 1370
without there being any acquisition of land or any payment of
compensation.
7. WPC No.2116 of 2016 has been filed by the petitioner-Subhash Jaiswal
claiming the same relief as claimed in WPC No.1014 of 2016 in respect of
Khasra Nos. 1355/4, 1355/6,1369 and 1370. In this petition, the petitioner
along with his three brothers have purchased a diverted land situated at
village Tifra, Tehsil and District Bilaspur, bearing Khara No.1369/2 -
1370/2, area 1.50 Acres, 1369/3-1370/1 area 1.50 Acres, 1369/5-1370/5
area 1.00 Acre, 1369/4-1370/4 area 1.62 Acres. There was a mutual
agreement between all the four brothers with respect to partition of the
land and Khasra No.1355/4 area 1.51 Acre, 1355/6 area 1.97 Acre and
some portion of Khasra Nos.1369/6 and 1370/5 were allotted in the share
of present petitioner-Subhash Jaiswal. Thereafter, the same was recorded
in his name in the revenue records and the petitioner Subhash Jaiswal is
-7-
in possession of the same. Thereafter, in this case also the respondents
started construction of connecting road between NH-200 to Sector-D over
the land of the petitioner without there being any acquisition of land or any
payment of compensation, as has been done in WPC No.1014 of 2016.
8. In WPC No.2118 of 2016 also, the petitioner-Subhash Jaiswal has again
claimed the same relief as claimed in WPC No.1014 of 2016 in respect of
Khasra Nos. 1369/5 and 1370/5. The petitioner, in this petition, amongst all
other reliefs, has also prayed to quash the demarcation report dated
24.06.2016. The petitioner Subhash Jaiswal purchased diverted land
Khara Nos.1369/2 - 1370/2, area 1.50 Acres, 1369/3-1370/1 area 1.50
Acres, 1369/5-1370/5 area 1.00 Acre, 1369/4-1370/4 area 1.62 Acres.
After its purchase, in this case also there was a mutual agreement
between all the four brothers of the petitioner regarding partition of the
land and land of Khasra No.1355/4 area 1.51 Acres, 1355/6 area 1.97 and
1369/5 and 1370/5 has been allotted in the share of the petitioner
Subhash Jaiswal. Thereafter, in this case also the respondents started
construction of connecting road between NH-200 to Sector-D over the
share of land of the petitioner i.e. Khasra No.1369/5 and 1370/5 without
there being any acquisition of land or any payment of compensation, as
has been done in all other cases.
9. From the above pleadings of the respective petitioners in their writ
petitions, the one and common issue involved in all the writ petitions are
that they are the owner of their respective land and without there being
any proper acquisition of their land and payment of any compensation, the
respondent authorities have stated construction of connecting road
between NH-200 to Sector-D, which passes through the land of the
petitioners, and thereby, the petitioners are put in the loss of their land.
Therefore, they claimed a relief that firstly the respondent authorities shall
-8-
acquire the land in accordance with law and only after payment of
adequate compensation, they may start the construction work of the
connecting road there. It is not the case of the petitioners that they are not
willing to give their land for construction of the road, but the only claim is
that they should be adequately compensated before construction of the
connecting road over their land.
10. In WPC No.1014 of 2016, on 22.04.2016 this court had directed the
respondent No.3, The Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue)-cum-Land
Acquisition Officer to get measurement at the spot done in presence of the
petitioner by revenue authorities and to submit their report before the court
and the case was fixed on 29.04.2016. When the report was not submitted
by the SDO (R), Bilaspur on 29.04.2016, again date was fixed for
06.05.2016 for submission of the said report. In compliance of the order
passed by this court, on 22..4.2016 a team was constituted for
demarcation of the land of the petitioner i.e. Khasra No.1369/2 and 1370/2
admeasuring 0.660 Hect. and ultimately on 09.05.2016 the land of the
petitioner was demarcated and Panchnama was prepared which has been
filed by the respondent-State, according to which, it has been found by the
team of revenue authorities that in presence of the respective parties the
land of Khasra No.1369 and 1370 was demarcated and as per alignment
of proposed connecting road, some part of Khasra No.1369 and 1370 may
be affected whose area would be 0.81 Acre. This report has been
submitted by the State on 10.05.2016.
11.On 13.05.2016, when again the matter was listed before the court for
hearing, the counsel for the State have submitted that the measurement
proceeding could not be completed because there are number of
occupants and notices have issued to them and the process may take
sometime and thereafter this court has granted six weeks time to complete
-9-
the process of demarcation and to submit a report before the court.
Thereafter, on 09.08.2016, the State has submitted his compliance report
of the order dated 13.05.2016 and have submitted that on 06.06.2016 the
demarcation of the land of the petitioner was completed and demarcation
of Khasra Nos.1369 and 1370 total area 5.87 Acres was done through four
corner alignment and Panchnama and spot map was also prepared in
which it has been stated that Khasra No.1369/2 and 1370/2 area 1.50
Acres is recorded in the name of petitioner Manju Devi which may be
affected while taking alignment of the proposed connecting road of the
CSIDC. It is further submitted that the land acquisition proceeding with
regard to the affect portion of the petitioner’s land has not yet been started
and in the even of petitioner’s land being taken or is being used for the
purpose of construction of said connecting road, proper proceedings under
the Land Acquisition Act shall be done.
12. During pendency of the writ petitions, Nagar Panchayat, Tifra was merged
in Municipal Corporation, Bilaspur. Therefore, the Municipal Corporation
Bilaspur has also been made a party respondents in the petition and the
corporation was also noticed. The respondent No.5-Municipal Corporation
Bilaspur has filed its reply on 07.10.2023 whereby they have submitted
that the entire land under dispute came to be within the territory and
jurisdiction of Municipal Corporation, Bilaspur from 20.08.2019. Badri
Prasad Jaiswal, Rajendra Prasad Jaiswal, Virendra Kumar Jaiswal,
Subhash Kumar Jaiswal and his other family members have moved an
application before the SDM Bilaspur for development of a colony over
Khasra Nos. 1367/9, 1369/2, 1370/2,1357,1369/3, 1370/2, 1355/7, 1371,
1372/2,1367/10,1368/2,1355/8,1367/11,1368/3,1367/13,1368/5,1075/1Kh,
1075/1ga, 1355/10,1355/5,1367/12,1368/4,1369/4,1370/4 and 1372/1,
total area 19.35 Acres. Permission of the same was granted by the SDM
Bilaspur and also from the Joint Director, Town and Country Planning,
-10-
Bilaspur. From the year, 2003, all the owners of the land admeasuring
19.35 Acres, started selling plots in the name of Jaiswal Colony and in
between 2002 to 2008 more than 45 plots were sold by the aforesaid
persons.
13. In 2005-06 when new building of High Court of Chhattisgarh was proposed
to be constructed at Bodri in Bilaspur-Raipur Highway then the connected
area started developing and in view of developing commercial potentiality
of the land, and to deprive entrance in the colony to the land purchasers,
the family members of the petitioner started litigating to get the layout
cancelled and they created a dispute over their own land. Vide order dated
29.11.2005, the SDM Bilaspur has cancelled their layout and the said
order was set aside by the Additional Collector, Bilaspur vide its order
dated 28.11.2008. The order passed by the Additional Collector, Bilaspur
was upheld by the Commissioner Division vide order dated 30.03.2013.
Thus, the petitioners have raised dispute after three years of selling their
plot. Due to cancellation of layout, the residents of the colony are facing
inconvenience and they have no access on the highway as per the
sanctioned layout. The colonizers even after cancellation of their layout
are involved in selling plots in the colony. The respondent No.5 Municipal
Corporation Bilaspur had issued notices to the colonizers under the
Chhattisgarh Nagar Palika (Registration of Colonizer, terms and
conditions) Rules, 1998 (in short, the Act, 1998) and Section 292C of the
Chhattisgarh Municipal Corporation Act, 1956 (in short, the Act, 1956).
When their reply was not found to be satisfactory, the Municipal
Corporation has lodge an FIR against the colonizers and since the
colonizers were acted in violation of the provisions of the Act, 1956, they
have taken over the management and control of the illegal colony and
proceeded to regularize the colony on the cost and fine for such
development and prepared a development plan for the colony.
-11-
14. Since the colonizers were acted in violation of Section 242-F of the Act,
1956, the land of the petitioners stand forfeited under Section 292-E, Sub-
section(2) of the Act, 1956, and vested the same in the Corporation free
from all encumbrance. The Municipal Corporation have further pleated in
their written that the petitioner and his family members were very well
aware about the situation of land and sanction of layout before entering in
to sale and purchase of the land and at present the land of the petitioner is
vested with the Municipal Corporation and therefore, he cannot claim any
remedy for grant of compensation or to acquire the same.
15. At this stage it is relevant to reproduce herein various orders passed by
this court time to time by which either the State has taken time to complete
the acquisition proceeding, or this court has directed to complete the
acquisition proceeding and to construct WBM road there-
“05.10.2016.
Heard.
Admit.
List these matters for final hearing in due course, however,
the land acquisition proceedings drawn on the request of the
CSIDC shall continue and the award shall be passed. The
amount shall not be disbursed to any of the petitioner.
13.12.2022
Heard on IA No.8 and IA No.5 (in WPC No.1553 of 2016)
which is an application for impleading the Municipal
Corporation, Bilaspur, as a necessary party since the area of
the disputed land is one which has now been brought under
the ambit of the Municipal Corporation, Bilaspur.
The applications are not opposed.
Accordingly, IA No.8 and IA No.5 (in WPC 1553 of 2016)
stand allowed. Let necessary amendments be carried out
within a period of two days.
Let a complete set of petition be given to Shri P. Acharya
representing Shri Abhyuday Singh, Panel Lawyer for the
Municipal Corporation, Bilaspur, who shall seek necessary
instructions in respect of the dispute involved in these writ
petitions.
Let the petitioner serve a complete set of amended writ
petition to Shri Abhyuday Singh for seeking necessary
instructions. If required the Municipal Corporation, Bilaspur,
may also file their reply by the next date of hearing.
-12-
The newly added respondent-Municipal Corporation,
Bilaspur, shall also seek instructions as regards the
construction of the incomplete road at the disputed area
which it is said that out of 1200 meters, 900 meters is
already complete and it is only a small patch of 300 meters
which needs to be constructed.
Meanwhile, Shri Anshuman Shrivastava, Advocate, may also
seek instructions and to file his Vakalatnama in WPC
No.1668 of 2016.
07.07.2023
Learned Advocate General along with Mr. A.K. Mishra,
Government Advocate would submit that 90% of the
construction of road has been completed only 10% of the
road is remaining because of inter-se dispute between the
Municipal Corporation, CSIDC and private parties.
Be that as it may, looking to the rainy reason and difficulty
being faced by public at large who are utilising the road, as
an interim measure, let WBM road be constructed over the
road which has not been finally constructed within 10 days
for smooth plying of traffic on the said road and photographs
of the same be filed.
14.08.2023
These bunch of cases were listed on 22.04.2016 and the
respondent No. 3 was directed to get the measurement done
in presence of the petitioners and Revenue authorities and
submit report. Thereafter, the matters were adjourned on
various dates and listed on 13.05.2016, on which date, the
respondents were again directed to complete the
demarcation work. On 05.10.2026 it was directed that the
proceedings with regard to land acquisition shall continue
and award shall be passed but the amount shall not be
disbursed to any petitioners. Thereafter, on various dates the
matters were adjourned. Again the matters were listed on
07.07.2023 on which date it was informed to this Court that
90% of the construction work in road has been completed
only 10% of the road is remaining because of inter-ee
dispute between the Municipal Corporation, CSIDC and
private parties. This Court directed the State looking to the
difficulty faced by the public at large to construct WBM road.
Learned Advocate General would submit that construction of
WBM road is under process.
Now, the issue involves before this Court is whether earlier
order passed by this Court has been complied with or not?
Let the Advocate General involve all the machineries which
are required for deciding the issue and make detail and
comprehensive affidavit which shall consist of the fact
whether the order passed by this Court on 05.10.2016 and
earlier have been complied with or not?”
16. Against the order dated 07.07.2023, by which a direction to construct
WBM road was given by this court, the petitioner Rajendra Prasad Jaiswal
-13-
(petitioner in WPC No.1668 of 2016) filed a Writ Appeal No.340 of 2023
before the Division Bench of this High Court challenging that without there
being any proper acquisition of land, the construction of WBM road over
his land is against his interest and therefore, construction of WBM road
may be stopped. The said Writ Appeal, was disposed of by the Division
Bench of this High Court on 31.08.2023 holding that the matter is already
subjudic before the authorities concerned i.e. the Collector, Bilaspur and
also before this court.
17. The respondents are not disputing the fact that the connecting approach
road from NH-200 to Sector-D is proposed to be constructed for which
notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act has been
published on 26.04.2013 in the Gazette and also in two local newspapers.
After public hearing on 05.06.2013, the notification under Section-6 of the
Land Acquisition Act has also been published in the Gazette on
27.09.2013 and in two local newspapers on 30.08.2013. Notices under
Section-9 of the Land Acquisition Act has also been issued for personal
hearing of the affected persons and after completion of all the required
procedure, the award has been passed by the land acquisition officer for
acquisition of the land of 5.88 Acres of village Tifra, Tehsil and District
Bilaspur. The compensation of the acquired land was also determined
under the The Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land
Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (in short, the Act,
2013). The acquired land was handed over to the District Commerce and
Industries Center, Bilaspur for construction of the connecting road.
18. Initially when the construction of the proposed connecting road was
sanctioned, total 10.70 Acres of land was required for the same as per the
approved layout plan for which the State Govt. has also given their
consent. Subsequently, a revised plan was sent by the Directorate,
-14-
Industries by which 8.21 Acres of land was said to be required for
construction of the said connecting road. Vide letter dated 16.11.2012, the
CSIDC have informed the Collector, Land Acquisition Cell, Bilaspur, that
presently they are required 5.97 Acres of private land for construction of
said connecting road and therefore, the same may be acquired in
accordance with law. Against the said 5.97 Acres of land, 5.88 Acres of
land of various persons have been acquired and handed over to CSIDC
for construction of the same, but the land of the petitioners are left over
from its acquisition although in the initial proposal their land were included
under the proposed layout plan and the State Government was also
intended to acquire the same.
19. It has further been stated by the parties that out of total length of said
connecting road, 900 meters of road has already been constructed and
only patch of 300 meters of road remains to be constructed.
20. In furtherance of construction of the road over the land in dispute, proposal
for construction of remaining 300 meters of road was sent by the CSIDC
to the State Govt. for acquisition of remaining 2.87 Acres of private land on
07.11.2015 under the Land Purchase by Mutual Consent Policy, 2016 (in
short, the Police, 2016), but the same is still pending consideration before
the Collector, Bilaspur. Vide letter dated 17.02.2017, the State Govt. has
given their consent for acquiring 2.87 Acres of land under the said Policy,
2016. The land of the petitioners comes under these 2.87 Acres which
were proposed to be acquired under Policy, 2016.
21. During pendency of the land acquisition proceeding under the Policy, 2016
with respect to 2.87 Acres of land, it has been brought to the notice of the
authority that with respect to 2.87 Acres of land, one Shailendra Kumar
Jaiswal, who, after entering into agreement with the present petitioners
and their family members, have obtained a colonizer license to develop a
-15-
residential colony and vide letter dated 29.01.2003 the permission was
granted for use of the residential purpose and thereafter in between 2002
to 2008 more than 45 plots were sold by the colonizer. As per the order
dated 29.01.2003, there was a condition that the colonizer himself has to
construct road in the colony and the land of the petitioners comes under
100 feet wide proposed road in that approved layout. At that juncture, one
of the family member of the petitioner Dr. Badri Prasad Jaiswal had made
a complaint and asked for cancellation of the development permission of
the colony. Despite having their objection, the period for completion of the
project was extended time to time in favour of the colonizer. In the year
2007, the extension application of the colonizer has been rejected on the
ground that on the date when the application was made for extension, the
earlier period granted was already expired and therefore the approved
layout has become null and void and that the colonizer has to obtain a
new permission under Section 29 of the Act. For this reason, the
respondents have said that in absence of any permission regarding
approved layout, the same has become null and void on or after
28.01.2007.
22. Since the colonizer Shailendra Kumar Jaiswal was having a dispute with
his brother Dr. Badri Prasad Jaiswal and also with his family members, on
on application being made by Dr. Badri Prasad Jaiswal, the SDO(R)
Bilaspur, has restrained further work of the colony and sale of plots and
imposed a penalty of Rs.50,000/- upon the colonizer Shailendra Jaiswal,
The said order dated 29.11.2005 passed by the SDO(R) Bilaspur was
challenged by Dr. Badri Prasad Jaiswal in an appeal before the Additional
Collector, Bilaspur and his appeal was allowed vide order dated
28.11.2008 and the colonization permission was declared ineffective in
view of dispute between the parties.
-16-
23. The order passed by the Additional Collector, Bilaspur, was further
challenged by the colonizer Shailendra Kumar Jaiswal before the
Commissioner, Bilaspur Division, Bilaspur. However, vide order dated
30.03.2013, his appeal was dismissed affirming the order passed by the
Additional Collector, Bilaspur.
24. Due to said dispute in between the colonizer and his family members, the
persons who have purchased plots over the said colony were facing
inconvenience as there was no access to the colony from Bilaspur-Raipur
NH-200. The said colony is branded as illegal colony as the colonizer have
sold the plots even after cancellation of the layout.
25. The proposed connecting road from NH-200 to Sector-D is adjoining to the
land of the petitioners. The second phase of acquisition of the land which
was required for completion of the said connecting road, the proposal was
sent to the State Govt. for purchase of land of the petitioners under the
Policy, 2016. The principal approval was granted by the State Govt. on
17.02.2017 for second phase of remaining 300 meters of road, but, in
between these writ petitions have been filed in which on 05.10.2016 it was
directed that the land acquisition proceedings drawn on the request of the
CSIDC shall continue and the award shall be passed, however the amount
shall not be disbursed to any of the petitioners.
26. In the present case the proposal for construction of the connecting road
from Bilaspur-Raipur NH-200 to Sector-D road has not been denied by
any of the parties. The construction of about 900 meters of road after
acquisition of land from respective owners have also not been denied by
any of the parties. So far as construction of remaining 300 meters of road
from NH-200 side is concerned, the main objection raised by the
respondents are that the petitioners have initially executed a power of
attorney in favour of one Shailendra Kumar Jaiswal who was developing a
-17-
colony there and got sanctioned the layout plan of the proposed colony
and started selling plots. Ultimately, the completion period of said layout
plan was over and he made an application for renewal of the said layout
plan after expiry of earlier approval and therefore, the said layout plan was
not renewed, however, despite that the plots were being sold by the said
colonizer Shailendra Kumar Jaiswal. Since the plots were selling by the
colonizer in violation of the provisions of Section 242-F of the Act, 1956
and thereby, the land of the petitioners were vested with the Municipal
Corporation and therefore the petitioners are not entitled for any
compensation.
27. It is notable here that in the year 2013-14 or in the year 2016 when the
petitions were filed, the land in dispute was not under the Municipal
Corporation Bilaspur. The said disputed land came under the Municipal
area in the year, 2019. The respondents are not disputed that the
petitioners are not the owners of the land in dispute. The respondents
have also contended that there was a family dispute in between the
petitioners with respect to subject land and one of the petitioner Dr. Badri
Prasad Jaiswal has filed a Civil Suite and also a complaint against the
colonizer for cancellation of the said layout plan. However, whatever
dispute are there, all those disputes are with respect to apportionment of
share of land between the respective family members and it is a inter-se
dispute between their family. The respondent authorities cannot deny for
awarding proper compensation if the same is acquired for the purpose of
construction of the said connecting road from NH-200 to Sector-D.
28. It is further the contention of Municipal Corporation that within the left over
patch of the said connecting road, under the colonizer license, the said
colonizer Shailendra Kumar Jaiswal was required to construct road which
comes in the same alignment of the proposed connecting road, and since
-18-
the road under the colonizers license have not been constructed by the
colonizer, he has violated the provisions of the Act, 1956, and the
colonizer license as well as the layout plan itself came to ineffective
condition and the lands vested with the Municipal Corporation. The
Municipal Corporation Bilaspur, has issued a notice to the said colonizer
Shailendra Kumar Jaiswal and others on 06.09.2023 for violation of
Chhattisgarh Municipal Corporation and Municipalities (Registration of
Colonizer, Terms and Conditions) Rules, 2013, and also the relevant
provisions of the Act, 1956. The conditions of Rules, 2013 came in force
from the year, 2013 whereas, the plots were already sold in between 2002
to 2006. Since 2002 to 2006 neither the concerned Nagar Panchayat nor
the Municipal Corporation have raised any objection regarding selling of
the plots without there being any valid colonizer license or in violation of
the provisions of Section 292 (C)(2) of the Act, 1956.
29. It is also necessary to mention here that the said colonizer license or
layout plan was not cancelled on the ground of violation of any conditions
of the said colonizer license or in violation of any layout plant, but it was
not renewed on the ground that the application for its renewal was made
after expiry of the earlier period of its validity. There is no any specific
order that the land of the petitioners have been vested with the Municipal
Corporation in violation of any conditions of the colonizer license or layout
plan.
30. It is not the submission of the State Government that now they are not
willing to complete the said project of construction of connecting road from
NH-200 to Sector-D road. The State Govt. is under obligation to complete
the said project for which they are required land as per their approved
map in which the land of the respective petitioners are proposed to be
acquired. For the reasons best known to the State Govt., they have left the
-19-
patch of only about 300 meters, but they still required to acquire the land
and to complete the said connecting road. The State Govt. cannot simply
left over the half constructed road that too without there being any
cancellation notification of the said project.
31. The Municipal Corporation, Bilaspur has issued show cause notices to the
petitioners on 06.09.2023 under Section 292(C)(2) of the Act, 1956 and
called their reply which are still pending consideration with the Municipal
Corporation.
32. In the present case, the grievances of the petitioners that they are the
owners of their respective lands situated at Village Tifra, Tahsil & District
Bilaspur. Their names have been mutated in the revenue records and they
are in possession of the same. The respondent No. 2 started construction
of road over their land for which their land was neither acquired nor any
compensation was paid to them. It is a simple prayer of the petitioners that
either to acquire their land and to pay compensation before starting
construction of road there, or not to interfere with the possession of their
land. Their prayer is quite reasonable. Although, the respondents have
raised various grounds that the petitioners have lost their rights over land
in question and the subject land vests with the Municipal Corporation and
the petitioners are not entitled for any compensation, but the same does
not seem to be bonafide. The respondent Municipal Corporation has given
notice to the seller of the land on 06-09-2023 for the sale deed executed in
between 2003 to 2008 except one or two sale deeds executed in the year
2019. The fact remains that the sale deeds of respective purchasers have
not been challenged by any of the parties before any competent court to
get it declared null and void. The rights and title have been transferred by
the sale deeds in favour of the purchasers and they are title and
possession holder of their land until their title are disturbed in appropriate
-20-
proceeding. Even, the Municipal Corporation has issued show cause
notice on 06-09-2023 and asked for reply as to why the proceeding under
Section 292 (C)(2) of the Municipal Corporation Act, 1956, may not be
initiated against them.
33. When the State Govt. starts any project for the benefit of public at large, it
should have completed the project well within time so that the public at
large may not suffer for any reason which were not favourable to the State
Government Such an important project started by the State Government
after verification of the entire aspects of the project with availability of land,
requirement of construction of said connecting road, difficulty in acquisition
of land and taking over its possession, payment of compensation and also
other allied difficulties. It is for the State Govt. and CSIDC also that if the
road is being constructed and completed, the CSIDC would be benefited
by their Sector-D Industrial Area Project and they would get direct access
from Bilaspur-Raipur National Highway-200. Only because of left over
patch of 300 meters, the road could not be completed due to which the
persons residing in the adjoining area are also suffering. Considering the
inconvenience of the people of adjoining colonies and surrounding areas,
this court on 07.07.2023 had directed the State Govt. to construct a WBM
road and to maintain the same in rainy season also so that the public at
large may not suffer. Such an important project of the State cannot be left
over incomplete.
34. The State Government with the consultation of CSIDC and Municipal
Corporation, Bilaspur, shall take a decision as to whether they still want to
complete the said connecting road (NH-200 to Sector- D industrial area,
Bilaspur) or not? If, they still want to complete the road, they shall first
start the land acquisition proceeding for the remaining patch of
connecting road as per their approved layout plan and thereafter shall
-21-
start the construction work of the road so that the petitioners may not
suffer by indefinite situation. They may use their land for any prospective
projects. The State Govt. Shall also keep in mind the incomplete
connecting road from NH-200 to Sector-D industrial area, Bilaspur, in view
of the fact that the proposed road up to 900 meters have already been
completed and only a patch of 300 meters road from NH-200 side remains
to be constructed.
35. Thus, for the foregoing reasons, all the writ petitions are allowed. The
respondents are directed to first acquire the land of the petitioners, if they
intend to complete the said connecting road from NH-200 to Sector-D
industrial area, Bilaspur, and only after payment of compensation to the
respective landowners, they may start the construction work of road. If, the
State Government does not intend to complete the construction of road,
then they shall not interfere with the possession of the petitioners over
their respective lands.
36. This order shall not come on the way in any other proceeding which the
Municipal Corporation/any other concern/any other party intended to
initiate, and the other proceeding shall be decided on its own merits
without being influenced by any of the observations made in this order.
The remedies of all the parties are left open to claim or challenge the
ownership of the land or action of opposite/respective parties in an
appropriate proceeding.
Sd/-
(Ravindra Kumar Agrawal)
Judge
inder