JUDGMENT : RAJENDRA CHANDRA SINGH SAMANT, J. 1. This petition has been brought praying for issuance of appropriate writ against the respondent authorities, directing them to initiate proceeding for making acquisition of land belonging to the petitioners and also directing to determine compensation according to the present market value. 2. It is submitted by counsel for the petitioners that the father of the petitioners, namely, Dau Niranjanlal Gupta was owner of the land bearing khasra Nos. 967, 971, 975, 990/19 and 995/1, total measuring 3.62 acres, situated at Kasaridih Patwari Halka No. 64/1, Durg, District Durg. Father of the petitioners expired on 23.2.2010. Prior to that, the respondent authorities had taken possession of the land above-mentioned without drawing any acquisition proceeding and granting any compensation to the father of the petitioners. Later on, 2.81 acres of land was acquired by the respondent authorities in the year 1999 and 0.69 acres of land was returned to father of the petitioners. The remaining land, 0.12 acres is the disputed land, which is neither acquired nor returned to father of the petitioners. On the contrary, respondent No. 4 has constructed house and road on this land. Father of the petitioners filed an application before the respondent authorities praying for grant of compensation of 0.12 acres of disputed land. The respondent authorities without initiating any acquisition process have passed an order dated 26.2.2003 for payment of compensation of Rs. 30,974/- to father of the petitioners. 3. It is submitted by counsel for the petitioners that father of the petitioners received the compensation amount as ordered under protest and prayed for making a reference to the District Judge. The reference was presided by the learned Ninth Additional District Judge, Durg, District Durg in M.J.C. No. 4 of 2006 and by the order dated 9.5.2008 (Annexure-P/6), the petitioners were granted compensation of Rs. 1,39,93,792.92. The respondent authorities preferred an appeal before the High Court against the order of Reference Judge which has been decided finally by the judgment dated 2.12.2009 (Annexure-P/7), in which the amount of compensation was reduced to Rs. 50,70,542/-. The petitioners have received the compensation amount as ordered and they have filed SLP before the Supreme Court praying for enhancement of compensation, which is pending. 50,70,542/-. The petitioners have received the compensation amount as ordered and they have filed SLP before the Supreme Court praying for enhancement of compensation, which is pending. The petitioners have made various representations before the respondent authorities praying for grant of appropriate compensation for 0.12 acres of land, but the same has not been considered and decided by the respondent authorities. It is further submitted that the acquisition of land without following the procedure as laid down under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 is violative of Article 300(A) of the Constitution of India. It is also submitted that by a memo dated 31.5.2021, the Land Acquisition Officer, Durg has directed respondent No. 5 to initiate the proceeding for land acquisition of 0.12 acres of land in possession of respondent No. 5. It is not disputed by the respondent authorities that 0.12 acres of land has not been acquired till date, therefore, it is prayed that appropriate writs may be issued. The petitioners have placed reliance on the judgment of Supreme Court in the case of Anand Singh and Another vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Others, (2010) 11 SCC 242 and on the judgment of this Court in the case of Manoj Modi and Another vs. State of Chhattisgarh and Others, 2012 (3) CGLJ 629 . 4. Learned State representing for respondents No. 1, 2 and 3 opposes the submissions made by counsel for the petitioners and submits that the Land Acquisition Officer has already communicated respondent No. 5 for initiating acquisition proceeding, therefore, appropriate order be passed. 5. Learned counsels for respondents No. 4 and 5 opposes the submissions made and submits that the present petition is filed after delay of 39 years. The land was acquired in the year 1974 whereas, the petition has been filed in the year 2013. Reliance has been placed on the judgment of Supreme Court in the case of State of Maharashtra vs. Digambar, (1995) 4 SCC 683 and in the case of Chennai Metropolitan Water Supply and Sewerage Board and Others vs. T.T. Murali Babu, (2014) 4 SCC 108 . 6. It is submitted by counsel for respondents No. 4 and 5 that the compensation of Rs. 30,974/- was determined by the authorities. The petitioners did not raise any objection on this determination and on the contrary, they filed an application praying for reference. 6. It is submitted by counsel for respondents No. 4 and 5 that the compensation of Rs. 30,974/- was determined by the authorities. The petitioners did not raise any objection on this determination and on the contrary, they filed an application praying for reference. The reference was made accordingly on which the order dated 5.1.2008 (Annexure-P/6) was passed by the Reference Court. Again the petitioners did not raise any objection on this proceeding even though, they were represented in this reference case. 7. In First Appeal (M) No. 26 of 2009 before the High Court, the petitioners were again represented but no objection was raised regarding the procedure adopted. It is further submitted that the petitioners cannot approbate and reprobate. Relying on the judgments of Supreme Court in the case of R.N. Gosain vs. Yashpal Dhir, (1992) 4 SCC 683 , C. Beepathuma and Others vs. Velasari Shankaranarayana Kadambolithaya and Others, AIR 1965 SC 241 , Rajasthan State Industrial Development and Investment Corporation and Another vs. Diamond and Gem Development Corporation Limited and Another, (2013) 5 SCC 470 and State of Punjab and Others vs. Dhanjit Singh Sandhu, (2014) 15 SCC 144 , it is submitted that the doctrine of election is clearly applicable in the present case as the petitioners have elected to accept the compensation pursuant to the order of High Court vide (Annexure-P/7), hence, the petition is fit to be dismissed. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioners, in reply, submits that clearly the acquisition of 0.12 acres of land has not taken place, even though compensation has been determined and enhanced in the reference order and then modified by the High Court order, but the wrong done has not been corrected. 0.12 acres of land is still being used by the respondent authorities without acquiring the same and without it being vested with the State. The respondents cannot be allowed to take benefit of their own wrong. It is clearly held in the case of Anand Singh and Another (supra) that right to property is no longer fundamental right but Article 300A of the Constitution of India mandates that no person shall be deprived of his property save by authority of law. The continuous use of 0.12 acres of land of the petitioners is clearly without an authority of law, hence, the reliefs prayed for in the petition are fit to be granted. 9. The continuous use of 0.12 acres of land of the petitioners is clearly without an authority of law, hence, the reliefs prayed for in the petition are fit to be granted. 9. Heard counsel for both the parties and perused the record. 10. On the basis of the submissions made by the petitioners' side and on perusal of the documents present in the record of the petition, there appears to be no dispute that the total land belonging to the petitioners was 3.62 acres which was taken in possession by respondent No. 5 for the housing purposes in the year 1974. No acquisition proceeding was drawn immediately. The notification dated 5.5.1999 (Annexure-R/1) was published showing acquisition of 2.81 acres of land. The land acquisition proceeding was then initiated. Memo of Collector dated 29.1.2002 (Annexure-P/2) reflects that the father of the petitioners had initially 3.62 acres of land, out of which, 2.81 acres of land was acquired, regarding which the compensation was paid and 0.69 acres of land was returned to father of the petitioners. Admittedly, remaining land of 0.12 acres was not returned. The Collector had proposed payment of Rs. 30,098/- as compensation for the remaining 0.12 acres of land to father of the petitioners, which was later on determined as Rs. 30,974/- against which, the petitioners prayed for reference and the orders on that reference have been passed by the learned 9th Additional District Judge, Durg and further, the order has also been passed in the first appeal by this High Court. Although, the petitioners have received the compensation as modified by the High Court, but the question raised is whether the proceeding drawn so far can be regarded as a proceeding as per the provisions of Land Acquisition Act or not. Prior to the enactment of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 and the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 was in force. 11. According to Section 4 of the Act, 1894 in the matter of acquisition by the appropriate government a notification was required to be published by the Collector mentioning the details of land to be acquired. Section 7 of the Act, 1894 empowered the Collector to take order for the acquisition of the land. 11. According to Section 4 of the Act, 1894 in the matter of acquisition by the appropriate government a notification was required to be published by the Collector mentioning the details of land to be acquired. Section 7 of the Act, 1894 empowered the Collector to take order for the acquisition of the land. Section 9 of the Act, 1894 provided for the issuance of notices to the persons interested and Section 11 of the Act, 1894 empowered the Collector to make an enquiry and pass award of compensation against the land acquired. Section 16 of the Act 1894 is specific that before passing of order under Section 11 of the Act, 1894 the Collector had entitlement to take possession of the land subsequent to which, the land was to vest absolutely in the government free from all encumbrances. 12. In the present case, there is clear admission of the respondent authorities that the remainder of 0.12 acres of land was not acquired, which is reflected from the memo dated 29.1.2002 of Collector, Durg (Annexure-P/2) and the memo dated 12.6.2014 filed as Annexure-R/1 issued by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Revenue/Acquisition Officer, Durg and also the admissions made in the reply of the respondents. 13. Although, some compensation has been paid to the petitioners pursuant to the order of High Court vide Annexure-P/7, but the order of the Collector on which the reference was made, was not an award in the terms of Section 11 of the Act, 1894 and such an award could have been drawn by the Collector only after completion of the other formalities, such as issuance of notification for acquisition under Section 4 of the Act, 1894, hearing objections under Section 5(A) of the Act, 1894, passing order for acquisition as required under Section 7 of the Act, 1894. Taking possession of the land acquired is a subsequent event according to Section 16 of the Act, 1894 and clearly, no such proceeding was drawn and completed before taking possession of the property in dispute and utilizing the same by the respondents. Taking possession of the land acquired is a subsequent event according to Section 16 of the Act, 1894 and clearly, no such proceeding was drawn and completed before taking possession of the property in dispute and utilizing the same by the respondents. Hence, the effect of this proceeding could be that the land belonging to the petitioners in possession of respondent No. 5 is without any lawful authority as the proceeding of acquisition was never taken up for this piece of land and therefore, the same land cannot be said to be vested with the State Government absolutely free from all encumbrances. In the case of Anand Singh and Another (supra), the Supreme Court has held that any person cannot be deprived of his property save by authority of law and this valuable right is available to an individual and violation of which would amounts to violation of Article 300A of the Constitution of India. Hence, the possession of property of the petitioners without the process of law cannot be ratified by any means. Hence, I am of this view that this petition is fit to be allowed and the petition is allowed. The respondent authorities are directed to initiate the proceedings for making acquisition of 0.12 acres of land of the petitioners, in accordance with law as may be applicable at present. All legal formalities be completed before passing of the final award of compensation. The compensation that has been paid so far to the petitioners on the basis of the earlier orders, shall be adjusted in the award to be passed by the Land Acquisition Officer. 14. With the aforesaid order and direction, the petition is disposed off.