1 2025:CGHC:28382-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WA No. 411 of 2025 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Its Secretary, Public Works Department, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Nava Raipur Atal Nagar, Raipur (C.G.) 2 - The Executive Engineer, Public Works Department, Sambhag No. 1 Raipur (C.G.) 3 - The Collector, Collectorate, Raipur (C.G.) 4 - The Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue) And Land Acquisition Officer, Collectorate, Raipur (C.G.) 5 - The Naib Tehsildar Collectorate, Raipur (C.G.) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - Aditya Real Estate And Developer Pvt. Ltd. Through Its Director, Sanjesh Gupta S/o Shri Sajjan Kumar Gupta Aged About 34 Years, R/o House No. 9 Park Street No. 1 Near Dussehra Ground, Choubey Colony, Raipur (C.G.) ... Respondents SOURABH BHILWAR Digitally signed by SOURABH BHILWAR Date: 2025.06.28 11:40:53 +0530 2 (Cause title is taken from CIS) For Appellants/ State : Mr. Shashank Thakur, Dy. A.G. For Respondents : Mr. Sumesh Bajaj, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru , Judge Order on Board Per Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice 27.06.2025 1. Heard Mr. Shashank Thakur, learned Dy. Advocate General for the appellant/ State. Also heard Mr. Sumesh Bajaj, learned counsel appearing for the respondents. 2. The present writ appeal preferred by the State of Chhattisgarh against the order dated 24.01.2025 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in WPC No.4890/2024 (Aditya Real Estate and Developer Pvt. Ltd. vs. State of Chhattisgarh & Ors.), whereby the learned Single Judge has disposed of the writ petition. 3. The writ petitioner (respondent herein) preferred the writ petition with the contention that the petitioner is the owner of land bearing Khasra No. 341/36, 341/37, 341/39 and 341/40 areas admeasuring 0.025 hectares, 0.047 hectares, 0.047 hectares and 0.047 hectares situated at Aamapara to Telghani Naka Main-road in Village Raipur-Khaas in the city of Raipur. Admittedly, an area admeasuring 252 square feet out of the above detailed lands was used by the Respondents way back in the year 2017 for widening of road and construction of drains 3 from Aamapara to Telghani Naka. It was stated that the petitioner was not paid a single penny for this land and instead, was being offered an additional Floor Area Ratio (F.A.R.) in lieu of his land and which was not acceptable to the petitioner. 4. The said writ petition was disposed of by the impugned order observing as follows :- “4. Taking into consideration the fact that offer of two times F.A.R. was cancelled by Municipal Corporation, Raipur and till date amount of compensation has not been paid to petitioner, therefore, respondent authorities are directed to initiate a land acquisition proceeding within period of 30 days from today. The authority concerned is also directed to make endeavors to conclude the proceeding within further period of 60 days and thereafter make payment of compensation strictly in accordance with the Right to Fair Compensation & Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013. 5. With regard to interest part, petitioner will be at liberty to approach the appropriate authority. 6. Accordingly, instant writ petition stands disposed of..” 5. Learned counsel for the appellants/State would submit that the finding recorded by the learned Single Judge in para 4 of the impugned order to the effect that offer of two times F.A.R. was cancelled by Municipal Corporation, Raipur suffers from the vice of perversity as there was no material. The disposal of the writ petition was mainly based on this perverse finding, which 4 prompted the learned Single Judge to dispose the matter with the direction contained in para 4 of the impugned order. He further submits that by directing to make payment of compensation in accordance with the Act of 2013, learned Single Judge has strike down the concluded contract between the parties without having been adverted to that contract and its binding nature for which the petitioner had given his acceptance vide letter dated 23/11/2017. He further contents that the petitioner has suppressed the material facts in the writ petition, which the respondents/appellants had brought on record, which the learned Single Judge completely failed to deal with and has passed the impugned order. The impugned order suffers from serious vices of facts and law and cannot be allowed to sustain and deserves to be interfered with. Hence, the order passed by the learned Single Judge deserves to be set aside. 6. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent/writ petitioner opposes the submission made by the counsel for the appellants and submits that the learned Single Judge has rightly passed the order dated 24/01/2025 and the same is warranting no interference of this Court. 7. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents appended herein. 8. Having considered the entire facts and circumstances of the case and particularly considering the fact that the learned Single 5 Judge has rightly observed in the order impugned that offer of two times F.A.R. was cancelled by Municipal Corporation, Raipur and till date amount of compensation has not been paid to petitioner, therefore, respondent authorities are directed to initiate a land acquisition proceeding within period of 30 days from today. The authority concerned is also directed to make endeavors to conclude the proceeding within further period of 60 days and thereafter make payment of compensation strictly in accordance with the Right to Fair Compensation & Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, we are of the considered view that the learned Single Judge has not committed any illegality, irregularity or jurisdictional error, warranting interference of this Court. 9. Accordingly, the writ appeal being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- Sd/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice S.Bhilwar/ Jyoti