1 2025:CGHC:46348 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 1010 of 2014 1 – (Withdrawn) Uttara Kumar (Amendment and deleted as per Courts Order dated 11.12.2024 & 02.05.2025) 2 – (Withdrawn) Santosh Kumar (Amendment and deleted as per Courts Order dated 11.12.2024 & 02.05.2025) 3 - (Withdrawn) Tribhuvan (Amendment and deleted as per Courts Order dated 11.12.2024 & 02.05.2025) 4 – Dayawati W/o Khilawan, aged about 50 years, R/o Village Parsada, Post Paloud, Police Station Mandir Hasoud, Tehsil Aarang, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh 5 – (Withdrawn) Basant Kumar (Amendment and deleted as per Courts Order dated 11.12.2024 & 02.05.2025 6 – (Withdrawn) Motilal (Amendment and deleted as per Courts Order dated 11.12.2024 & 02.05.2025) 7 – Maan Singh S/o. Panchram, aged about 25 years, R/o Village Parsada, Post Paloud, Police Station Mandir Hasoud, Tehsil Aarang, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh 8 – (Withdrawn) Shyamu (Amendment and deleted as per Courts Order dated 11.12.2024 & 02.05.2025) 9 – Laxmichand S/o Rambagas Chandrakar, aged about 44 about years, R/o Village Parsada, Post Paloud, Police Station Mandir Hasoud, Tehsil Aarang, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioners Versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Department of Housing and Environment, Mantralaya, Naya Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 – District Collector, Collectorate, Raipur, Chhattisgarh 3 – Naya Raipur Development Authority, Through its Chief Executive Officer, New Rajendra Nagar, In front of Vijeta Complex, R.D.A. Building, Raipur, Chhattisgarh 4 – Land Acquisition Officer / Sub-Divisional Officer, Tehsil Aarang-Abhanpur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh Digitally signed by RAMESH KUMAR VATTI Date: 2025.09.16 18:58:21 +0530 2 ... Respondents For Petitioners : Ms. Shalini Gera, Advocate along with Ms. Anushree Rajput and Mr. Amit Verma, Advocates For Respondents No. 1, 2 & 4/ State For Respondent No. 3/NRDA : : Mr. Rajkumar Gupta, Additional Advocate General & Mr. Vedant Shadangi, Panel Lawyer Mr. Sumesh Bajaj, Advocate Hon’ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 10/09/2025 1. The petitioners have challenged the Notification issued under Section 17 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short the ‘Act 1894’) dated 06.08.2011 and 28.07.2011, Notification issued under Section 4(1) read with Section 17(1) of the Act 1894, Notification under Section 6 of the Act 1894 and the award dated 01.03.2013. 2. The facts of the present case are that Notifications were issued on 08.08.2011 and 19.08.2011, whereby decision was taken by respondent No. 2 to acquire total 83 survey numbers admeasuring 29.98 hectares, situated at Village Parsada, Patwari Circle No. 21, Tehsil Aarang, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh in exercise of powers conferred under Sections 4(1) and 17(1) of Act 1894 and by dispensing with requirement of Section 5(A) of the Act 1894. The Notification dated 03.12.2009 is source of authority for respondents i.e. Collector, Raipur and Commissioner, Raipur Division for issuance of notice dated 08.08.2011. Notification under Sections 4(1) and 17(1) of the Act 1894 were published in two Newspaper namely Patrika and Haribhoomi on 19.08.2011. Notification under Sections 4(1) and 17(1) of the Act 1894 were published in the Official Gazette on 26.08.2011. Notification under 3 Section 6 of the Act 1894 was published in two Newspaper namely Deshbandhu and Dainik Bhaskar on 24.10.2011 and in the Official Gazette on 18.11.2011. The final award was passed under the Act 1894 on 01.03.2013. The petitioners have filed this petition on 13.05.2014. 3. Mr. Shalini Gera, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would argue that Survey No. 122 admeasuring 0.810 hectares, Survey No. 393 admeasuring 0.210 hectares and Survey Nos. 136, 265 & 266 total admeasuring 0.840 hectares belonging to petitioners namely Dayawati, Maan Singh and Laxmichand were acquired by invoking emergency clause 17(1) of the Act 1894. Ms. Shalini Gera would submit that as urgency clause was invoked, therefore, opportunity of hearing under the provisions of Section 5A of the Act of the 1894 was not provided to the petitioners; the procedure followed for land acquisition was arbitrary, willful and contrary to public policy and New Raipur Development Authority (for short ‘NRDA’) was not competent to initiate land acquisition proceedings in the absence of Town Development Scheme. The Committee constituted under Section 17A of the Nagar Tatha Gram Nivesh Adhiniyam, 1973 failed to discharge its functions and thus, the respondent authorities have violated constitutional right to property enshrined under Article 300-A of the Constitution of India. She would further submit that unreasonable use of emergency clause and exclusion of public hearing in land acquisition proceeding is illegal abridgment of petitioners’ rights. She would contend that no reason was provided for invoking emergency clause. She would submit that the petitioners are still in physical possession of their lands after 12 years of land acquisition. She would contend that the separate order 4 under Section 17(4) of the Act 1894 was not passed. It is also contended that Section 4 notification under the Act of 1894 does not specify any public purpose and the villagers were not duly informed. She would submit that the respondent authorities artificially suppressed market value for the lands due to restriction on land sales and presence of a monopoly buyer. It is also argued that objections of lands owners were not considered in preparation of the Naya Raipur Development Plan. She would submit that delay and laches in approaching the court is not an adequate reason to deny fundamental right as provided under Section 5A of the Act 1894. 4. Ms. Shalini Gera has placed reliance on the judgments passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matters of Anand Singh and Ors. Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Ors., reported in (2010) 11 SCC 242; Radhy Shayam Vs. State of U.P., reported in (2011) 5 SCC 553; Kamal Trading Pvt Ltd. Vs. State of West Bengal, reported in (2012) 2 SCC 25; Om Prakash Vs. State of U.P., reported in (1998) 6 SCC 1; Hindustan Petroleum Corpn Ltd. Vs. Darius Shapur Chenai, reported in (2005) 7 SCC 627; Union of India Vs. Mukesh Hans, reported in (2004) 8 SCC 14; Munshi Singh Vs. Union of India, reported in (1973) 2 SCC 337; A.P. Industrial Infrastructure Vs. Chinthamaneni Narasimha, reported in (2012) 12 SCC 797 : 2011 AIR SCW 5047; Hamid Ali Khan Vs. State of U.P., reported in (2021) 20 SCC 65; Dinesh Vs. State of M.P., reported in (2024) SCC OnLine SC 237 and Vidya Devi Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh, reported in (2020) 2 SCC 569. 5. Mr. Rajkumar Gupta, learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the State/respondents No. 1, 2 & 4 would argue that the petition 5 must fail on the ground of delay and laches as Notification under Section 4(1) read with Section 17(1) was issued on 08.08.2011, whereas this petition has been filed on 13.05.2014. He would contend that after passing of award, the notifications issued prior in time cannot be questioned by the petitioners. In this regard, he has placed reliance on the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of A.P. Industrial Infrastructure Corporation Ltd. Vs. Chinthamaneni Narasimha Rao & Ors. reported in 2011 AIR SCW 5047. 6. Mr. Sumesh Bajaj, learned counsel appearing for the New Raipur Development Authority/respondents No. 3 would argue that Section 4 Notification was signed by the Authority on 08.08.2011 and it was published in the Newspapers on 19.08.2011 and in the Official Gazette on 26.08.2011. He would submit that award was passed on 01.03.2013 and thereafter this petition was filed. 7. Mr. Sumesh Bajaj would further argue that similar petitions challenging very notifications and award bearing WPC No. 650/2013; WPC No. 868/2012; WPC No. 915/2012; WPC No. 645/2013 and WPC No. 649/2013 have been dismissed by this Court vide order dated 20.08.2025. 8. I have heard learned counsels for the parties and perused the documents. 9. It appears that initially, writ petition was filed by 09 petitioners and 06 have already withdrawn. Documents were provided by the learned counsel appearing for the State in WPC No. 650/2013 which reveals that out of total 28 land oustees, 16 land oustees have already accepted the award amount. In the present petition also, out of 09 petitioners, 06 have withdrawn their writ petition. It is also apparent that 6 the amount of compensation was deposited with the Land Acquisition Officer immediately after passing of award and 16 land oustees have accepted the amount of compensation. Thus, it would be very difficult to segregate the lands of the land oustees, when the most of part of the acquired land has already been developed as informed by counsel appearing for the NRDA. 10. In the present case, initial Notification was issued on 03.12.2009 which was source of authority for the Commissioner, Raipur Division and the Collector, Raipur for issuance of notice dated 08.08.2011. Notification under Sections 4(1) and 17(1) of the Act 1894 were published in two Newspapers namely Patrika and Haribhoomi on 19.08.2011 and thereafter in Official Gazette on 26.08.2011. Notification under Section 6 of the Act 1894 was published in two Newspapers namely Deshbhandhu and Dainik Bhaskar on 24.10.2011 and in the Official Gazette on 18.11.2011. The instant petition was filed on 13.05.2014 and award was passed on 01.03.2013. In Para-7 of the writ petition, the petitioners have not explained the reasons of delay properly. 11. In the matter of Chinthamaneni Narasimha Rao (supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court while dealing with the issue of delay of few years challenging Notification issued under Section 6 of the Act 1894, in paragraphs no. 10 and 11 held as under:- 10. We see no reason for the land owners to wait for a few years for challenging the declaration made under Section 6 of the Act on the ground of delay. If the land owners had been really aggrieved, they ought to have challenged the proceedings immediately after declaration made under Section 6 of the Act. 11. This Court has held in several judgments that if the land owners are aggrieved by the acquisition proceedings, they must challenge the same at least before an award is made and the possession of the 7 land in question is taken by the Government Authorities. It has been held in Swaika Propeties (P) Ltd. & another v. State of Rajasthan & others [(2008) 4 SCC 695 : (AIR 2008 SC 1494 : 2008 AIR SCW 1574)] as under : “6. This Court has repeatedly held that a writ petition challenging the notification for acquisition of land, if filed after the p[possession having been taken, is not maintainable. In Municipal Corpn. of Greater Bombay v. Industrial Development Investment Co. (P) Ltd. (1996) 11 SCC 501 : (AIR 1997 SC 482 : 1996 AIR SCW 3871) where K. Ramaswamy, J. speaking for a Bench consisting of His Lordship and S.B. Majmudar, J. held (SCC p. 520, para 29) : (Para 29 of AIR, AIR SCW) : “29. It is thus well-settled law that when there is inordinate delay in filing the writ petition and when all steps taken in the acquisition proceedings have become final, the Court should be loath to quash the notifications. The High Court has, no doubt, discretionary powers under Article 226 of the Constitution to quash the notification under Section 4(1) and declaration under Section 6. But it should be exercised taking all relevant factors into pragmatic consideration. When the award was passed and possession was taken, the Court should not have exercised its power to quash the award which is a material factor to be taken into consideration before exercising the power under Article 226. The fact that no third-party rights were created in the case is hardly a ground for interference. The Division Bench of the High Court was not right in interfering with the discretion exercised by the learned Single Judge dismissing the writ petition on the ground of laches. Similarly, in the case of State of Rajasthan & Ors. v. D.R. Laxmi & Ors. [(1996) 6 SCC 445 : (1996 AIR SCW 3970)] following the decision of this Court in the case of Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay (supra) it was held : “… When the award was passed and possession was taken, the Court should not have exercised its power to quash the award which is a material factor to be taken into consideration before exercising the power under Article 226. The fact that no third party rights were created in the case, is hardly a ground for interference. The Division Bench of the High Court was not right in interfering with the discretion exercised by 8 the learned Single Judge dismissing the writ petition on the ground of laches. …” To the similar effect is the judgment of this Court in Municipal Council, Ahmednagar & another v. Shah Hyder Beig & Ors. [(2000) 2 SCC 48 : (AIR 2000 SC 671 : 2000 AIR SW 197)] wherein this Court, following the decision of this Court in C. Padma and others v. Dy. Secy. To the Govt. of T.N. and others [(1997) 2 SCC 627] held (Shah Hyder case SCC p. 55, para 17) (Para 17 of AIR, AIR SCW) : “17. In any event, after the award is passed no writ petition can be filed challenging the acquisition notice or against any proceeding thereunder. This has been the consistent view taking by this Court and in one of the recent cases (C. Padma v. Dy. Secy. to the Govt. of T.N. [(1997) 2 SCC 627] ...” 12. Notification under Sections 4(1) and 17(1) of the Act 1894 were issued on 16.10.2006 by the State Government and this fact was within knowledge of the petitioners, as name of village Parsada appears in said notification at serial no. 40 and document has been placed on record by the petitioners, therefore, contention raised by learned counsel appearing for the petitioners with regard to knowledge of proceedings cannot be accepted. It cannot be said that the villagers of Village Parsada were not aware of initiation of land acquisition proceedings by invoking emergency clause. 13. Document annexed at page 46 of writ petition which is minutes of meeting dated 04.11.2006 would reveal that sufficient opportunity of hearing was afforded to the petitioners and villagers of concerned Gram Panchayats. Annexure P-6 would show that for development of New Raipur Scheme, a Committee was constituted and objections were invited. Annexure P-7 is Naya Raipur Development Plan 2031 and this document has been placed on record by the petitioners themselves. Annexure P-10 order-sheets of land acquisition 9 proceedings would show that the villagers of village Parsada appeared before the authority and put their signatures. 14. With regard to Notification under Section 17(1) of the Act 1894, it was published on 24.10.2011 in two daily Newspaper and it was notified in the Official Gazette on 18.11.2011 and according to said Notification, the land was acquired for public purpose for development of New Raipur. Thereafter award was passed on 01.03.2013 whereas this petition has been filed 13.05.2014 without explaining delay. If the petitioners were aggrieved with the Notification issued under Section 17(1) of the Act 1894, they should have approached this Court immediately after its publication. The area where the lands in question are located, majorly constitutes the recreational land use for the planning and development of recreational activities. The area has been planned to be developed as sports hub adjoining the existing cricket stadium. The developmental activities which are being undertaken by the respondent NRANVP are being done as per the Nava Raipur Atal Nagar Development Plan, 2031, which was approved and came into force on 08.08.2008. The urgency clause was invoked pursuant to approval granted by the Commissioner, Raipur Division for development of New Capital. 15. Now coming to the next ground raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners with regard to Section 5(A) of the Act 1894, which deals with hearing of objections. In the present case, the petitioners could not establish that they were not afforded opportunity of hearing. The State in its return has categorically stated that opportunity was afforded to the petitioners and the said fact has not been rebutted. 10 16. Admittedly, the petitioners have challenged the various notifications after passing of award, whereas those Notifications were issued way back in the year 2011 and they failed to explain the reasons for such delay. 17. As the writ petitions filed by land oustees of Village Parsada arising out of same land acquisition proceedings have already been dismissed by this Court in WPC No. 650/2013 and connected matters vide order dated 20.08.2025, therefore, this Court cannot take a different view. 18. Considering the above-discussed facts and the law laid down in the matter of Chinthamaneni Narasimha Rao (supra), I do not find any good ground to entertain this writ petition. 19. Consequently, the petition fails and is hereby dismissed. No cost(s). Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge vatti