1 2025:CGHC:16880 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 1866 of 2025 1 - Dinesh Singh S/o Shri Ram Prasad Singh Aged About 45 Years R/o P-44 Kavita Nagar, Post Office- Shankar Nagar, P.S.- Telibhandha, Raipur, Civil And Revenue Distt. Raipur (C.G.) 2 - Smt. Jagpati Devi W/o Shri R.P. Singh Aged About 66 Years R/o P- 44 Kavita Nagar, Post Office- Shankar Nagar, Police Station- Telibhandha, Raipur, Civil And Revenue District- Raipur (C.G.) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through- The Secretary, Department Of Revenue, Mantralaya Mahanadi Bhawan, Naya Raipur, District- Raipur (C.G.) 2 - Chief Executive Officer New Raipur, Development Authority, Mahanadi Bhawan, Naya Raipur, District- Raipur (C.G.) 3 - The Collector Raipur District- Raipur (C.G.) 4 - Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue) And Land Acquisition Officer Abhanpur, Mukhyalay, District Office, Raipur, District- Raipur (C.G.) 5 - The Joint Collector Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) For Petitioners : Mr. A. S. Rajput, Advocate For State/Respondent(s) : Mr. Shreyansh Mehta, Panel Lawyer For Respondent No.2/NRDA : Mr. Anumeh Shrivastava, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad RAVI SHANKAR MANDAVI Digitally signed by RAVI SHANKAR MANDAVI Date: 2025.04.21 19:46:36 +0530 2 Order on Board 11/04/2025 1. Heard Mr. A. S. Rajput, learned counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Mr. Shreyansh Mehta, learned Panel Lawyer for the State/respondent/s and Mr. Anumeh Shrivastava, learned counsel for the respondent No.2/NRDA. 2. By way of this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for following reliefs: “10.1.That, this Hon'ble court may kindly be pleased to issue a suitable writ or writs for quashing / set aside the order dated 24.02.25 (Annexure P-13) passed by res.no.5 arising out of order dated 04.04.22 (Annexure P-10) passed by res.no.4 and directing the respondents to determine the proper compensation amount of the petitioners land treating as diverted industrial land as per the market value of diverted industrial land and also according to the new / amended land acquisition act. 10.2. Any other relief / reliefs which may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case, may also be allowed. 10.3. Cost of the petition may also be allowed by this Hon'ble Court. An affidavit in support is being filed herewith.” 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that on the basis of order dated 29.04.2022 in WPC No.2014 of 2022 this Court has granted liberty to file appropriate application stating that there is a specific provision under Section 18 of Land Acquisition Act, 1894, 3 accordingly, the petitioner has filed an application under Section 64 of Right to Fare Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 read with Section 18 of Land Acquisition Act, 1894 with a prayer for enhancement of the award dated 29.04.2013, however, vide order dated 24.02.2025, the Joint Collector has passed an order stating that since the earlier petition filed by the petitioner bearing WPC No.2014 of 2022 has been dismissed, as such, the prayer of the petitioner cannot be considered. 4. Learned counsel for the respondent-State has opposed the argument advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner and submit that respondent authorities have rightly rejected the prayer of petitioner in compliance of order dated 29.04.2022 in WPC No.2014 of 2022. 5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and also perused the material available on record. 6. As in the earlier round of litigation order of dismissal has been passed by this Court, but in para No.7 & 8, it has been specifically mentioned that there is provision under Section 18 of the Act of 1894 for enhancement of the award, which the petitioner has not filed as such, the petitioner was granted liberty, since this Court has passed order granting liberty to the petitioner to file an application under Section 18 of the Act of 1894, as such, the Collector concerned is required to pass speaking orders on merits 4 of the case, accordingly, the order dated 24.02.2025 is hereby quashed. The Collector, Raipur is directed to pass appropriate order in respect of application filed by the petitioner under Section 64 of Right to Fare Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 read with Section 18 of Land Acquisition Act, 1894 preferably within a period of 45 days. 7. This Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case, the concerned SDO and the Collector are required to pass an appropriate order on merits in accordance with law. 8. Accordingly, the petition stands disposed of with aforesaid observations and directions. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Ravi Mandavi