1 2025:CGHC:3293 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 1489 of 2014 1. Shiv Balak Mishra And Anr. S/o Lt Badri Prasad Mishra Aged About 69 Years R/o 44 Samta Colony, Raipur, Dist Raipur, Cg, Chhattisgarh 2. Shailendra Tiwari S/o Ramdatt Tiwari Aged About 50 Years Agriculturist, R/o Village Navagaon, Tah Aarang, Dist Raipur, Cg, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Department Of Housing And Environment, Mantralaya, Naya Raipur, Dist Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2. District Collector, Collectorate, Raipur, District : 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, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 4. Land Acquisition Officer/ Sub Divisional Officer, Tah Aarang, Abhanpur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 5. Director Town And Country Planning, Second Floor, RDA Building, Bajrang Complex, Shastri Chowk, Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) (Cause Title is taken from Case Information System) For Petitioners : Mr. H.B. Agrawal, Senior Advocate along with Ms. Swati Agrawal, Advocate For State/Respondents No. : Mr. Lav Sharma, Panel Lawyer 1, 2 & 4 For Respondents No. 3 : Mr. Sumesh Bajaj, Advocate along with Mr. Ayush Verma, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 20. 01.2025 1. By way of this petition, the petitioners have sought the following relief(s):- 2 “10.1 Quash the Notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (Annexure P/14) for acquisition of lands, admittedly lying outside the Planning Area of Naya Raipur and in the agricultural zone, regarding which no public proclamation has been made in the affected village of the Petitioners. 10.2 Quash the Notification issued under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act (Annexure P/18) without consideration of the serious objections raised by the Petitioners. 10.3 Redress the losses incurred by the Petitioner No. 1 from the illegal leveling of his lands and bulldozing of the furrows of his fields owing to which he has been unable to raise crops since the year 2011. 10.4 Grant any other relief which this Hon'ble Court may deem just and fit in the circumstances of the case. 10.5 Quash the award dated 23.10.2015 (Annexure P/18A) passed in land acquisition case no. 26/A-82/year 2013.” 2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the application moved by the petitioners for payment of compensation against the Land Acquisition has not been decided yet. He would further submit that a direction may be issued to the Land Acquisition Officer to decide the pending application. 3. On the other hand, Mr. Sumesh Bajaj, counsel appearing for respondent No. 3 would submit that in relief clause 10.1, the petitioners have challenged the notification issued under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short “Act, 1894”) and relief clause 10.2, they have challenged a notification published under Section 6 of the Act, 1894 dated 08.01.2014 whereas the award was passed on 23.10.2015 and the same is also the subject matter of this petition. He would also submit that the petitioners had earlier filed WPC No. 2363 of 2015 and that was disposed of reserving liberty in favour of the petitioners and other similarly situated petitioners to approach the appropriate authority under the new act. 3 4. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents including the relief sought by the petitioners. 5. Admittedly, the petitioners have challenged the notification published under Sections 4 & 6 of the Act, 1894, and thereafter, by way of amendment, the award dated 23.10.2015 has also been challenged. 6. There is a specific provision under Sections 64 & 65 of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (hereinafter referred to as “Act, 2013”) for reference by the Collector to authority to redress the grievances pertaining to the amount of compensation and its apportionment. 7. Taking into consideration the fact that the petitioners have not sought any direction to the Land Acquisition Officer to decide their pending application; such relief cannot be granted. 8. Taking into consideration the prayer made by the petitioners and the provisions of Sections 64 and 65 of the Act, 2013, this petition is disposed of reserving liberty in favour of the petitioners to approach the appropriate authority according to the provisions of Sections 64 and 65 of the Act, 2013. 9. With the aforesaid observation(s), and direction(s), the instant petition is hereby disposed of. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge $iddhant