IN FAM-105-2018 2026:CGHC:20950-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR FAM No. 105 of 2018 C.G. Housing Board Through Executive Engineer, Deen Dayal Upadhyay Nagar (Now Division-1 Kabir Nagar), Raipur, Chhattisgarh, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh ... Appellant Versus 1 - Smt. Sandhya Gumashta W/o Late M.P. Gumashta R/o Sunand Nagar, Near Ring Road, Raipur, Tehsil And District Raipur, Chhattisgarh, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Collector Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh ... Respondents [Cause-title taken from Case Information System (CIS)] ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- For Appellant : Mr. Sanjay Patel, Advocate For Respondent No.01 : None. For Respondent No.02 : Mr. Rahul Tamaskar, Govt. Advocate ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Division Bench Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal and Hon'ble Shri Justice Sachin Singh Rajput Judgment on Board (05.05.2026) Sanjay K. Agrawal, J 1. The appellant- CG Housing Board has preferred this appeal under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 feeling aggrieved by award dated 15.12.2017, passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Raipur in Compensation Case No.06/2012 (Smt. Sandhya Gumashta v. State of Chhattisgarh and another), by which compensation to the tune of Rs.1,05,103/- has been awarded to the plaintiff/respondent No.01 SAIFAN KHAN Digitally signed by SAIFAN KHAN IN FAM-105-2018 herein. 2. Facts of the case, in short, are that land belonging to the appellant herein bearing Khasra No.63/04, admeasuring 0.15 hectares, situated at Village Danganiya, RI Circle Raipur, Tehsil and District Raipur (CG) was subjected to acquisition and, accordingly, an award was passed by the Collector and compensation to the extent of Rs.82,171/- per acre was awarded. Against which, the respondent No.01 herein filed an application under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, which was referred to the Court of District Judge and, the District Judge, Raipur has passed the impugned award dt. 15.12.2017 and, against which, this appeal has been preferred by the CG Housing Board on the ground of limitation. Further, the respondent No.01 herein has also preferred an appeal before this Court, but the same has been dismissed for want of prosecution by a separate order. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the reference made by the Collector to the District Court under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act was not maintainable being barred by limitation for the reason that it was not filed within the period of limitation provided under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act and, as such, the impugned award is liable to be set aside. 4. We have heard learned counsel for the parties, considered their rival submissions made hereinabove and went through the record with utmost circumspection. 5. A careful perusal of the record would show that no issue was IN FAM-105-2018 framed with regard to limitation by the learned District Judge nor it was pressed into service before the Reference Court and, ultimately, this plea of limitation has neither been raised nor it has been pressed/considered by the Reference Court. Therefore, the plea of limitation raised by the appellant cannot ben accepted at this stage. Accordingly, we do not find any merit in this appeal. It deserves to be and is hereby dismissed being meritless. No cost. sd/- sd/- (Sanjay K. Agrawal) (Sachin Singh Rajput) Judge Judge s@if