1 2025:CGHC:16211 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 1757 of 2025 Manoj Kumar Sahu S/o Shri Akshay Kumar Sahu Aged About 38 Years Village Kalgatar, Post Karanpali, Tehsil Baramkela, District Sarangarh Bilaigarh Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioner versus 1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Department of Revenue And Disaster Management, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Naya Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh. 2 - Director Directorate of Industries, Raipur, Udyog Bhawan, Ring Road No. 1, Telibandha Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 3 - Collector Raigarh And Ex - Officio Deputy Secretary, Government of Chhattisgarh, Revenue And Disaster Management Department, District Raigarh Chhattisgarh. 4 - Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue) And Land Acquisition Officer Raigarh District Raigarh Chhattisgarh. 5 - Chhattisgarh State Industrial Development Corporation Limited Through Its Chief General Manager, CSIDC, Raigarh, District Raigarh Chhattisgarh. 6 - The Chief General Manager District Trade And Industries Center, Raigarh, District Raigarh Chhattisgarh. ... Respondents (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner : Mr. Chandresh Shrivastava, Advocate For Respondent-State : Mr. Khulesh Sahu, Panel Lawyer For Respondent-CSIDC : Mr. Kashif Shakeel, Advocate YOGESH TIWARI Digitally signed by YOGESH TIWARI Date: 2025.04.09 09:58:10 +0530 2 Hon’ble Shri Amitendra Kishore Prasad, Judge Order on Board 07.04.2025 1 Heard Mr. Chandresh Shrivastava, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Mr. Khulesh Sahu, learned Panel Lawyer appearing for respondent-State and Mr. Kashif Shakeel, learned counsel appearing for respondent-CSIDC. 2 The instant writ petition is preferred by the petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution with the following relief(s):- “10.1 That the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to call for the entire records pertaining to the present case. 10.2 That the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash the impugned notification dated 21/02/2024 (Annexure P-1) so far the same excludes the land of petitioner and direct the respondents for inclusion of the land of petitioner bearing Khasra No. 258/8 area 0.060 Hectare in notification under section 11. 10.3 That the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash the impugned order dated 26/09/2023 (Annexure P-2) passed by 3 respondent no:4 excluding the land of petitioner being without jurisdiction. 10.4 That this Hon'bie Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent authorities to acquire the entire land of the petitioner as per notification under section 4. 10.5 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to grant any other relief(s), which it may deemed fit and proper in the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case.” 3 The present petition is preferred against the illegal, arbitrary and discriminatory preliminary notification under Section 11 of The Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (hereinafter referred to as “Act, 2013”) dated 21.02.2024 issued by respondent no.3 declaring the lands mentioned in the said notification to be required for public purpose contrary to the notification issued under Section 4 of the Act, 2013 thereby only excluding the small tract of land of petitioner depriving him of his valuable rights as all the adjacent lands have been either acquired or notified for being acquired. Further, the petition is against the illegal and arbitrary order dated 26.09.2023 passed without giving any opportunity of hearing whereby the respondent No.4 without having any authority or jurisdiction have deleted the land of the 4 petitioner from amongst the lands proposed for acquisition under Section 4 of the Act, 2013 and despite the objection being raised before the respondent No.3 and reports being received categorically stating that the land of the petitioner is also affected then also no action has been taken and on the contrary, respondents are heading for issuance of notification under Section 19 of the Act, 2013. 4 Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the land of the petitioner was notified under Section 4 of the Act, 2013 for acquisition of the same, however, in the notice under Section 11 of the Act, 2013, the land of the petitioner has been left. He further submits that according to the petitioner, the entire area has been acquired and only the land and house of the petitioner has been left, which is situated middle of the land and as such, the petitioner has also moved an application before the Collector- cum-Land Acquisition Officer for acquisition of the land under Section 15 of the Act, 2013, which is pending consideration, hence, a direction be issued to decide the same within a considerable time period. 5 On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the State as well as CSIDC would jointly submit that it would be upon the Collector-cum-Land Acquisition Officer to decide the application/representation of the petitioner as per Section 15 of the Act, 2013. 5 6 I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the materials available on record. 7 Considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case, the petitioner is directed to apprise the Collector-cum-Land Acquisition Officer, Raigarh, (C.G.) about the order passed by this Court within a period of 7 days from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order, and in turn, the Collector-cum-Land Acquisition Officer, Raigarh, (C.G.) is directed to consider the case of the petitioner as well as his application/ representation in terms of Section 15 of the Act, 2013 and decide the same expeditiously within a period of 30 days from the date of production of certified copy of this order by the petitioner. 8 With the aforementioned observation/direction, instant writ petition is disposed of. S Sd/- - (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Yogesh