1

  NON-REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO.3778 OF 2018 [Arising out of SLP (C) No.36272 of 2016]

Hemraj Chandrakar & Anr.         .. Appellant(s)

Versus

State of Chhattisgarh & Ors.          .. Respondent(s)

J U D G M E N T

Abhay Manohar Sapre, J.

1) Leave granted.

2) This appeal arises from the final judgment and

order dated 28.09.2016 passed by the High Court of

Chhattisgarh  at  Bilaspur  in  W.A.  No.467  of  2016

whereby  the  Division  Bench  of  the  High  Court

dismissed the appeal filed by the appellants herein

and upheld  the  order  dated 08.04.2016 passed by

2

the Single Judge in Writ Petition (c) No.696 of 2016

by  which  the  writ  petition  filed  by  the  appellants

herein  was  dismissed  on  the  ground  of  delay  and

laches.   

3) In  order  to  appreciate  the  short  legal  issue

involved in the appeal, few relevant facts, which lie in

a  narrow  compass,  need  to  be  mentioned

herein-below.

4) The  appellants  are  the  writ  petitioners  before

the High Court.

5) Challenging  the  land  acquisition  proceedings,

the  appellants  filed  petition  being  Writ  Petition  (C)

No.696/2016 before the High Court.  

6) The Single Judge of the High Court dismissed

the writ  petition by order dated 08.04.2016 on the

ground of delay and laches. Since the writ  petition

was dismissed on the ground of delay and laches, no

ground  of  challenge  raised  by  the  writ  petitioners

3

(appellants  herein)  was  gone  into  by  the  Single

Judge.  

7) The  writ  petitioners  felt  aggrieved  and  filed

intra-court  appeal  before  the  Division  Bench.  By

impugned  judgment,  the  Division  Bench dismissed

the appeal and upheld the order of the Single Judge

with the following observations contained in Para 4 of

the judgment:  

“4. We have perused the record of the writ petition and in the writ petition there is not a single averment that the possession of the land has not been taken.  In the writ petition, there is no averment much less any proof of the fact that this land has been taken over. Therefore, we have no reason to discard clear cut finding given by the learned Single Judge that the land has been used for development of Naya Raipur.  Therefore, we find no merit in  the  appeal,  which  is  accordingly dismissed.”

8) It is against this judgment, the appellants (writ

petitioners) felt aggrieved and filed this appeal by way

of special leave before this Court.

4

9) Having heard the learned counsel for the parties

and  on  perusal  of  the  record  of  the  case,  we  are

inclined to allow the appeal, set aside the impugned

judgment and remand the case to the Division Bench

for  deciding  Writ  Appeal  No.467 of  2016 afresh in

accordance with law.

10) The  need  to  remand the  case  to  the  Division

Bench of the High Court has arisen because from the

perusal of Para 4 of the impugned judgment quoted

supra,  we  find  that  the  Division  Bench  observed,

“there is not a single averment that the possession of

the land has not been taken. In the writ petition, there

is no averment much less any proof of the fact that this

land has been taken over”.

11) Learned  counsel  for  the  appellants  (writ

petitioners), however, pointed out, by referring to the

prescribed  Column  No.3  (particulars  of  the

cause/order  against  which the  petition is  made)  of

5

the writ petition, Para 4 of the application for grant of

interim relief  dated 29.02.2016 filed along with the

writ petition, and paras 1.1, 1.20, 2.2, 2.4 and 2.7 of

the writ appeal memo that the writ petitioners have

made specific averments in these paras that they are

in possession of the land in question.

12) Learned counsel, therefore, contended that the

observation  made  by  the  Division  Bench  on  this

issue, which led to dismissal of their appeal, does not

appear to be correct being contrary to the record of

the case.

13) In  our  opinion,  in  the  light  of  the  averments

made by the writ petitioners in the aforementioned

paras, as detailed above, which seem to have escaped

the  attention of  the  Division Bench,  the  impugned

judgment needs to be set aside.

14) We,  therefore,  consider  it  just  and  proper  to

remand the case to the Division Bench of the High

6

Court and request the Division Bench to decide the

writ appeal afresh in accordance with law.

15) We, however,  leave all  the questions including

the maintainability of the writ petition on any other

grounds open for its decision.  Indeed, it is for the

Division Bench to decide the issues, while deciding

the  writ  appeal,  uninfluenced  by  any  of  our

observations made in this judgment.

16) In view of the foregoing discussion, the appeal

succeeds  and  is,  accordingly,  allowed.   Impugned

judgment is set aside. The appeal is restored to its

original  number  before  the  Division  Bench  of  the

High Court for its disposal in accordance with law.

………………………………..J (R.K. AGRAWAL)

             ..………………………………J.    (ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE)

New Delhi, April 13, 2018