Delay in filing petition no bar for compensation for acquired land: HC

Raipur: Chhattisgarh high court has held that mere delay in filing the writ petition cannot deprive the owners of land from compensation when their land is used for road construction under Calamity Relief Scheme.
The Single Bench of Justice Bibhu Datta Guru directed the PWD secretary, Janjgir-Champa district collector and others to demarcate the area belonging to the landowners, which has been used for construction of road and thereafter initiate proceeding for acquisition and compensation of the said area in accordance with the provision of law while hearing this over 40-year-old matter.
The petitioners, residents and landowners of Karaovadih, Khamhardih, and Murlidih villages in Jaijaipur tehsil of Janjgir-Champa district, filed a writ petition seeking compensation from the state govt for land used in constructing a WBM road from Nandeli to Kachanda. The petitioners alleged that their lands were utilized without acquisition or compensation, citing specific parcels of land owned by Bhagwat Das, Tarachand Yadav, Balad Ram, Dukhuwa Kewat, Motilal Yadav, Dwarika Murlidih, Barsan Das, Murit Ram Murlidih, Surat Lal, and Mahendra Nath.
Counsel for the petitioners, Yogesh Chandra, argued that while compensation had been paid to other villagers in Bhothideah for similar land use, no such payments were made to the petitioners, despite the precedent of compensation following a writ petition filed in the case of Chandra Prakash @ Chandrika Prasad Chandra & Others vs. State of Chhattisgarh & Others.
The state's counsel, Upasna Mehta, contended that the road was constructed in 1983-1984 under the Calamity Relief Scheme, following a circular issued on Oct 14, 1981, which allowed the use of land where owners voluntarily offered it during emergencies.
The counsel also highlighted that the petition was filed after a delay of 33 years and argued that the road construction benefited the petitioners' ancestors.
The high court, however, observed that the state had not produced any agreement or consent documents to substantiate claims of voluntary land use. Citing the Supreme Court's rulings in Vidya Devi vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and Tukaram Kana Joshi vs. MIDC, the court emphasized that dispossession of property without legal sanction and compensation violates fundamental rights.
It rejected the state's arguments of delay, laches, and adverse possession, reiterating that such doctrines are inapplicable when justice demands otherwise.
The court directed the state to complete land demarcation within three months and initiate land acquisition proceedings to ensure compensation to the petitioners, aligning with the principles of justice and the rule of law.