ALOK LAL Vs. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Instant petition is for payment of compensation for the land acquired or in lieu thereof to return the land.

(2.) The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner through his predecessor in title owned a piece and parcel of land bearing Khasra No.671/1 and 674 admeasuring 0.56 acres and 0.40 acres at Patwari Halka, 23, Tifra, Vyapar Vihar, Bilaspur. The said lands were recorded in the name of father of the petitioner who died on 2/02/2007. Subsequent to it when the petitioner came to know that the land were owned by the father, it was enquired about it and it was revealed that the respondent No.2 is in possession of the said land without there being proper legal acquisition having been made the petitioners were deprived of their land. Therefore detail representation was initially filed on 16/11/2015. The representation was responded by respondent/Municipal Corporation and it was revealed that the father of the petitioner Shyam Bhushan had executed an agreement on 15/01/1988 for land bearing Khasra No.671 and the acquisition was made on the basis of mutual consent. Further admission was made by letter 24/09/2019 (Annexure P-8) that no agreement was executed with respect to the land bearing khasra no.674 admeasuring 0.56 acres. According to the case of the petitioner even if an agreement was executed it was with respect to Khasra No.671/1 for an area of 0.34 acres, but no consideration was paid however with respect to Khasra No.674 there was no agreement. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner cannot be therefore robbed in the manner by the Municipal Corporation of their land without due course of law.

(3.) Learned counsel for the Municipal Corporation would submit that Khasra No.671/1 and Khasra No.674 admeasuring 0.40 acres and 0.56 acres have been utilized by the Municipal Corporation and third party rights have been created. As per the reply it is stated that the land were recorded in the name of Shivcharan, Surajdeen and Bohran and 40% of the compensation amount in the year 1987 was paid to said Shivcharan, Surajdeen and Bohran. However an objection having been raised by the father of the petitioner that the land were purchased in the year 1967 he is the true owner, the disbursement of the rest of the compensation was stopped. It is stated subsequently the ownership was enquired into by the Corporation about the ownership of land and after enquiry it was found that the petitioner's father was true owner of the property so utilized by Corporation. Therefore a fresh agreement was executed with him for acquisition of the land bearing Khasra No.671/1 vide agreement dated 5/01/1988. As per the reply of the respondent the disbursement of initial compensation was made to the wrong person instead of the real owner.