IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) No. 1333/2021

PETITIONER Ashutosh Sharma

Versus

RESPONDENTS Union of India and others

INDEX

Sl. Particulars Annex Page

No. . No.
1. Return on behalf of Respondent No.
1 with affidavit
2. Copy of order dated 12-10-2020 in R-1/1
SLP (Civil) (Diary No.) 15189/2020
(State of Chhattisgarh & Ors. and
others v. Mahadev Gond and others)

BILASPUR RAMAKANT MISHRA

DATE : -03-2021 ASST. SOLICITOR GENERAL OF INDIA

(COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENT NO.1)

 IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) No. 1333/2021

PETITIONER Ashutosh Sharma.

Versus

RESPONDENTS Union of India and others

RETURN ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT NO. 1

(UNION OF INDIA)

The respondent no. 1 respectfully submits as under –

1. The petitioner challenged the legality and validity of the

order of compensation dated 28/07/2017 (Annexure P-

3) passed by the respondent no. 5 wherein the Sub

Divisional Officer (Land Acquisition) has calculated the

amount of compensation by applying the multiplier

factor of One in place of Two relying upon the. The

petitioner prayed for following reliefs:

“10.1 That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be

pleased to pass similar order in terms of order
passed in WPC NO.1961/2018 and REVP No.
10/2019 in the interest of justice and kindly
direct the respondent and acquisition officer for
recalculating the compensation after applying
Multiplying factor 2 and for payment of
difference amount.

10.2 Any other relief, which this Hon’ble Court

may deem fit and proper, may also be passed in
favour of the petitioner.
2. The answering respondent is Union of India, Ministry of

Road Transport and Highways, as in the present case

the petitioner has not arrayed the Acquiring authority

i.e. National Highway Division, PWD, Bilaspur as party

resultantly the National Highway Division, PWD,

Bilaspur is swearing the affidavit for the instant reply

on behalf of answering respondent which is under the

answering respondent setup for the purpose of

Development, maintenance and management of

National Highway in Bilaspur Division, Chhattisgarh

with the objective to construct major road corridors with

improved geometry, which reduce leave time and cost,

and help in faster movement of people and goods with

attended to road safety parameters.

3. It is submitted at the very outset that the writ petition is

not maintainable because in this case the award being

complete and the legal mandate of section 4 of the

National Highways Act, 1956 (now mentioned as the

Act, 1956) comes into operation. Therefore, the said

land also vests free from all encumbrances with the

respondent no. 1. It is submitted that the writ petition is

misconceived. For ready reference section 4 of the Act,

1956 is reproduced here under.

“4. National highways to vest in the Union. –

All national highways shall vest in the Union,
and for the purposes of this Act “national
highway” include-
 (i) all lands appurtenant thereto, whether
demarcated or not;

(ii) all bridges, culverts, tunnels,

causeways, carriageways and other structures
constructed on or across such highways; and

(iii) all fences, trees, posts and boundary,

furlong and milestones of such highways or any
land appurtenant to such highways.”

4. It is well settled in law that after issuance of award a

writ petition is not maintainable and also that award

cannot be set aside in writ proceedings except in cases

of clear cases of fraud being committed or their existing

a clear case of error of law apparent on the face of the

record. The two possibilities being absent herein as per

the pleadings made in the writ petition and the prayer

sought therein the writ petition deserves to be

dismissed.

5. It is submitted that the grievance of the petitioner is

basically with respect to calculation of compensation,

and for that the Act, 1956 being a complete code in

itself provides for a grievance redressal mechanism.

Under section section 3G (5), (6) and (7) of the Act, 1956

which directly relate to calculation of compensation

related grievances. For ready reference section 3G is

reproduced herein –

“3G. Determination of amount payable as

compensation.- (1)Where any land is acquired
under this Act, there shall be paid an amount
which shall be determined by an order of the
competent authority.

(2) Where the right of any user or any right in

the nature of easement on, any land is acquired
under this Act, there shall be paid an amount
to the owner and any other person whose right
of enjoyment in that land has been affected in
any manner whatsoever by reason of such
acquisition an amount calculated at ten per
cent of the amount determined under sub-
section (1), for that land.

(3) Before proceeding to determine the amount

under sub-section (1) or sub-section (2), the
competent authority shall give a public notice
published in two local newspapers, one of
which will be in a vernacular language inviting
claims from all persons interested in the land to
be acquired.

(4) Such notice shall state the particulars of the

land and shall require all persons interested in
such land to appear in person or by an agent or
by a legal practitioner referred to in sub-section
(2) of section 3C, before the competent
authority, at a time and place and to state the
nature of their respective interest in such land.

(5) If the amount determined by the

competent authority under sub-section (1)
or sub-section (2) is not acceptable to either
of the parties, the amount shall on an
application by either of the parties, be
determined by the arbitrator to be appointed
by the Central Government.

(6) Subject to the provisions of this Act, the

provisions of the Arbitration and
 Conciliation Act, 1996 (26 of 1996) shall
apply to every arbitration under this Act.

(7) The competent authority or the

arbitrator while determining the amount
under sub-section (1) or sub-section (5) as
the case may be, shall take into
consideration –

(a) the market value of the land on the

date of publication of the notification under
section 3A;

(b) the damage, if any, sustained by the

person interested at the time of taking
possession of the land, by reason of the
severing of such land from other land;

(c) the damage, if any, sustained by the

person interested at the time of taking
possession of the land, by reason of the
acquisition injuriously affecting his other
immovable property in any manner, or his
earnings;

(d) if any, consequences of acquisition of

the land, the person interested is compelled
to change his residence or place of business,
the reasonable expenses, if any, incidental
to such change.” (Emphasis supplied)

6. It is well settled in law that an alternative remedy is to

be resorted to first and all forums of remedies available

in law other than writ remedies have to be exhausted

before invocation of writ jurisdiction of the High Court

under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. It is

submitted that under section 3G (7) a complete

procedure for re-determination of compensation has

been provided under the Act, 1956, and while

determining the amount under sub-section (7) of section

3G following factors are to be considered by the

arbitrator –

(a) the market value of the land on the date

of publication of the notification under section
3A;

(b) the damage, if any, sustained by the

person interested at the time of taking
possession of the land, by reason of the
severing of such land from other land;

(c) the damage, if any, sustained by the

person interested at the time of taking
possession of the land, by reason of the
acquisition injuriously affecting his other
immovable property in any manner, or his
earnings;

(d) if any, consequences of acquisition of

the land, the person interested is compelled to
change his residence or place of business, the
reasonable expenses, if any, incidental to such
change.

Thus, a complete procedure for re-determination of

compensation has been provided under the Act, 1956,

and while determining the amount under sub-section

(7) of section 3G and against the compensation

determined by the arbitrator, further remedy of applying

under the provisions of the Arbitration and Conciliation

 Act, 1996 is available to the person aggrieved as in this

case the petitioners.

7. It is submitted that the petitioners cannot say that the

remedy under sub-section (7) of section 3G is not just

and proper with respect to re-determination if the land

holder is aggrieved against the assessment of

compensation passed by the CALA under sub-section (1)

and (2) of section 3G of the Act, 1956.

8. It is submitted that the question of alternative remedy

being non efficacious does not arise particularly in view

of the fact that sub-section (7) of section 3G also states

the factors that are to be taken into consideration while

determining the compensation.

9. In this case a focused reading of the petition specifically

the relief clause make it out clear that the case is simply

with respect to dissatisfaction with respect to

calculation of compensation, and therefore, the correct

forum for the petitioner is to avail the remedy under

sub-section (7) of the section 3G of the Act, 1956

instead of this writ petition.

10. It is submitted that it is pleaded in the writ petition that

this Hon’ble Court in an identical case i.e. WPC

1961/2018 Mahadev Gond v. State of CG and other

have affirmed the view that the land owners whose land
 has been acquired for construction of national highway

in rural areas are entitled for multiplying factor of ‘Two’.

11. It is submitted that the Answering respondent through

MoRTH sought review of this order dated 18-07-2018 in

REVP 10/2019, however the same was disposed on 24-

06-2019. Nonetheless para 4 to 6 of REVP 10/2019 are

reproduced herein –

“4. It is brought to the notice of this Court

that the disparity in adopting two different
multipliers in respect of acquisition proceedings
in the same State was considered by the State,
based on the judgment passed in Writ Petition
(C) No. 1649 of 2017 (Smt. Anita Agrawal v.
State of Chhattisgarh & others) and that the
State has brought about an amendment,
whereby an appropriate multiplier has been
fixed as ‘two’, even in respect of the acquisition
for the State as per notification dated
02.05.2019. This being the position, there
cannot be any change with regard to the
benefit/result flowing from the verdict passed by
the Bench on 18.07.2018. But the grievance of
the review petitioners is that the
observation made by the Bench that, in
respect of all the acquisitions pursuant to
the notification of the Central Government,
the appropriate multiplier shall be ‘two’
cannot be sustained, as the acquisition
within the State was with respect to the
property situated in the State where the
appropriate government is the State
Government and not the Central
Government. In so far as the notification
 issued by the Central Government is
concerned, it can only be with regard to the
acquisition in a Union Territory, submits by
the learned Assistant Solicitor General of
India. In so far as verdict passed by this
Court with regard to the appropriate
multiplier would not result in any change,
in view of the subsequent developments,
particularly by virtue of the amendment
brought about by the State bringing the
multiplier adopted by the Central
Government, there need not be any
interference with the verdict sought to be
reviewed; except to a limited extent as to
the disputed observation.

5. We make it clear that that the

observation made by the Bench with regard
to the notification issued by the Central
Government will not have any bearing or
significance with regard to the issues
involved and it is left open.

6. The review petition is disposed off

accordingly.” (Emphasis supplied)

Therefore, the legal conundrum arising out of the order

dated 18-07-2018 in WPC 1961/2018 and WPC

1649/2017 and connected cases decided on 30-10-2018

has persisted. In fact, while hearing and deciding WPC

1649/2017 and connected cases on 30-10-2018, the

Division Bench did not refer to earlier order of 18-07-

2018 in WPC 1961/2018.

12. It is submitted that due to non-compliance of order

dated 18-07-2018 in WPC 1961/2018; CONT 923/2019

(Mahadev Gond v. Sanjeev Ranjan and others) was filed

and in that case notice was issued on 26-11-2019.

Thereafter on 19-02-2020, CONT 923/2019 was

connected with CONT 1181/2019. Eventually, CONT

923/2019 was heard together with CONT 1181/2019,

CONT 75/2020 and CONT 236/2020 on 24-02-2020

wherein a detailed order has been passed and this

Hon’ble Court has observed that –

“Prima facie, the inaction on the part of the Land

Acquisition Authority discloses an element of
contempt to be proceeded against. However,
learned counsel representing the third
respondent, while conceding that no
modified/revised award was passed, submits
that since letter Annexure C-4 does not disclose
calculation of award amount adopting multiplier
of “2”, the amount already made available and
the balance to be paid, a chance may be given to
the third respondent to pursue necessary steps
in this regard.

In view of above submissions, we find it

appropriate to grant one month’s time to the
Land Acquisition Authority to come up with
necessary corrective measures, if it was an
inadvertent mistake or lack of proper
understanding or result of any wrong advise.

………………, learned counsel submits that

there is some difference with regard to factual
sequence, as far as Case No. 1181/2019,
75/2020 and 236/2020 are concerned. We do
not intend to express anything in this regard
and we leave it to be considered by the third
 respondent and to pass modified/corrective
award, wherever it is necessary, in view of the
binding nature of the inter-parte judgment.

List the matter for further consideration after

one month along with other connected cases.”

13. It is earnestly submitted that thereafter on 20-07-2020

State of Chhattisgarh has moved to the Hon’ble

Supreme Court of India challenging the orders passed

by this Hon’ble Court in cases of WPC 1961/2018

(Mahadev Gond v. State of CG and others) heard and

decided on 18-07-2018 and REVP 10/2019 (Union of

India and others v. Mahadev Gond and others) heard

and decided on 24-06-2019, WPC 1649/2017 (Anita

Agrawal v. State of CG and others) and connected cases

heard and decided on 30-10-2018, REVP 190/2019

(State of CG and others v. Anita Agrawal and others)

and connected review petitions heard and decided on

12-12-2019. State of Chhattisgarh has preferred Special

Leave Petition (Civil) (Diary No.) 151819/2020 – State of

CG and others v. Mahadev Gond and others.

14. It is submitted that Answering respondent too has

preferred a Special Leave Petition against the same

group of cases and their Special Leave Petition is

registered as Special Leave Petition (Civil) (Diary No.)

15546/2020 – Union of India and others v. Mahadev

Gond and others, this Special Leave Petition has been

filed on 24-07-2020.
15. It is submitted that the Hon’ble Supreme Court is thus

presently seized of the cases i.e. - WPC 1961/2018

(Mahadev Gond v. State of CG and others) heard and

decided on 18-07-2018 and REVP 10/2019 (Union of

India and others v. Mahadev Gond and others) heard

and decided on 24-06-2019, WPC 1649/2017 (Anita

Agrawal v. State of CG and others) and connected cases

heard and decided on 30-10-2018, REVP 190/2019

(State of CG and others v. Anita Agrawal and others)

and connected review petitions heard and decided on

12-12-2019. This is evident from the “Earlier Court

Details” mentioned in case status of SLP (Civil) (Diary

No.) 15189/2020 (State of CG and others v. Mahadev

Gond and others) as reflecting in website of the Hon’ble

Supreme Court of India.

16. It is submitted that SLP (Civil) (Diary No.) 15546/2020

(Union of India and others v. Mahadev Gond and others)

was listed before Court No. 5 (Video Conferencing)

comprising bench of Hon’ble Mr. Justice A.M.

Khanwilkar and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sanjiv Khanna on

24-09-2020, and on that day it was directed to be listed

along with SLP (Civil) (Diary No.) 15189/2020 (State of

Chhattisgarh and others v. Mahadev Gond and others)

on 30-09-2020.

17. It is submitted that thereafter on 30-09-2020 SLP (Civil)

(Diary No.) 15546/2020 (Union of India and others v.

 Mahadev Gond and others) was listed along with SLP

(Civil) (Diary No.) 15189/2020 (State of Chhattisgarh

and others v. Mahadev Gond and others) before Court

No. 5 (Video Conferencing) comprising bench of Hon’ble

Mr. Justice A.M. Khanwilkar and Hon’ble Mr. Justice

B.R. Gavai and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Krishna Murari. On

the said date the case was adjourned for next week.

18. It is submitted that thereafter on 12-10-2020 SLP (Civil)

(Diary No.) 15546/2020 (Union of India and others v.

Mahadev Gond and others) was listed along with SLP

(Civil) (Diary No.) 15189/2020 (State of Chhattisgarh

and others v. Mahadev Gond and others) before Court

No. 5 (Video Conferencing). On the said date the Hon’ble

Supreme Court of India granted stay of the impugned

judgments and orders dated 18-07-2018 in WPC no.

1961/2018 and dated 24-06-2019 in REVP no.

10/2019 passed by this Hon’ble Court at Bilaspur. The

Hon’ble Court further observed that the Contempt

proceedings in reference to the impugned orders shall

not be precipitated. A copy of order dated 12-10-2020 in

SLP (Civil) (Diary No.) 15189/2020 (Union of India and

others v. Mahadev Gond and others) is annexed

herewith as ANNEXURE R-1/1 (As it’s a short order the

entire order is reproduced herein)

“As prayed, permission to file additional

documents is granted. I.A. No. 98571/2020 is
additional allowed.
 Issue notice on the application(s) for condonation
of delay as also on the special leave petition(s),
returnable in four weeks.

Dasti, in addition, is permitted

In the meantime, there shall be stay of the

impugned judgment(s) and order(s) dated
18.07.2018 in WPC No. 1961/2018 and
24.06.2019 in REVP No. 10/2019 passed by
the High Court of Chhattisgarh at Bilaspur.

Contempt proceedings in reference to the

impugned order(s) shall not be precipitated.

19. It is submitted that thus, the writ petition as presented

and pleaded is not maintainable and misconceived for

availability of efficacious statutory alternative remedy

specifically created under law to adjudicate disputes

pertaining to assessment of compensation.

20. It is submitted that in the SLP by the State of CG and

answering respondent before the Hon’ble Supreme

Court of India in case of Mahadev Gond; WPC

1961/2018 (decided on 18-07-2018) and REVP

10/2019 (decided on 24-06-2019) in which the entire

group of petitions decided along with WPC 1649/2017

and review preferred from it in REVP 190/2019 and

other connected cases are under consideration in the

Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, whereby Hon’ble

Supreme Court have stayed the impugned judgments

stated above.
 21. It is submitted in such circumstances the law laid down

by WPC 1961/2018 and REVP No.10/2019 cannot be

said to be conclusively applicable as the issue is not laid

to a complete rest in law and according to the well

settled principles of law of precedents.

22. It is submitted that therefore, reliance cannot be placed

on the said judgment at this stage when SLP against the

said group of cases and subject matter adjudicated

therein is directly under challenge before the Hon’ble

Supreme Court.

23. It is submitted that for the pleadings made herein above

the writ petition is not maintainable and misconceived.

24. It is submitted that at this stage the answering

respondent are not submitting a para wise reply to the

writ petition, and reserve their right to submit a para-

wise reply as and/or when it may be deemed necessary

for effective hearing and disposal of this case.

25. It is submitted that however, the answering respondent

undertake to submit a para-wise reply as and when

directed by this Hon’ble Court to do so.

26. An affidavit in support of this return is enclosed

herewith.

BILASPUR RAMAKANT MISHRA

DATE : -03-2021 ASST. SOLICITOR GENERAL OF INDIA

(COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENT NO.1)

 IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) No. 1333/2021

PETITIONER Ashutosh Sharma.

Versus

RESPONDENTS Union of India and others

AFFIDAVIT

I, Y.K. Sonkar , S/o Late Shri Johan Ram Sonkar, aged about 59
years, Presently posted as Executive Engineer, PWD National Highway
Division, Bilaspur and officer in-charge in present case for answering
respondent no. 1, do hereby solemnly affirm on oath as under:-

1. That, I am duly authorized officer for answering respondent no.1, as

such had been dealing with the affairs connected with the same
thereby being fully been conversant with the facts of the case.

2. That, the reply to the petition has been prepared under my

instructions. The contents of reply are true to my personal
knowledge, derived from the records of the case, except legal
submission which are believed by me to be true.

VERIFICATION

I, Y.K. Sonkar, S/o Late Shri Johan Ram Sonkar, the above named
deponent, do hereby verify the affidavit and contents of Para 1 & 2 above
are true and correct to the best of my personal knowledge and belief.

Signed and verified on this day of March 2021 at Bilaspur

[Chhattisgarh]

Identified by me