1 2025:CGHC:32161 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 1356 of 2016 Izarail Khan S/o Late Harun Khan Aged About 57 Years Office Superintendent South Eastern Coalfields Limited S.E.C.L. Bhatgaon Area, R/o P.O. P.S. And Tahsil Ramanuj Nagar, District Surajpur Chhattisgarh, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1. State Of Chhattisgarh Thorugh Secretary, Department Of Revenue And Disaster Management, Mahanadi Bhavan, Mantralaya, Naya Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh, Chhattisgarh 2. Collector, Surajpur, District Surajpur Chhattisgarh, District : Surajpur, Chhattisgarh 3. Additional Collector Cum Lan Acquisition Officer, Surajpur, District Surajpur Chhattisgarh, District : Surajpur, Chhattisgarh 4. Sub Divisional Officer Revenue Surajpur, District Surajpur Chhattisgarh, District : Surajpur, Chhattisgarh 5. Tahsildar, Ramanujganj Nagar, Tahsil Ramanuj Nagar, District Surajpur Chhattisgarh, District : Surajpur, Chhattisgarh 6. Chhattisgarh State Power Generation Company Limited, Through Its Managing Director, Danganiya, Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 7. Sarguja Rail Corridor Pvt. Ltd. Subsidiary Of Adani, Mining Pvt. Ltd. Through Its Manager, Having Office At Near Nagar Panchayat Surajpur, P.O. And District Surajpur Chhattisgarh, District : Surajpur, Chhattisgarh SANTOSH KUMAR SHARMA Digitally signed by SANTOSH KUMAR SHARMA Date: 2025.09.26 15:12:06 +0530 2 8. Adani Tracks Management Service Ltd. Through its Manager, Office at Adani Corporate House, Shatigram, Near Vaishnao Devi Circle, S.G. Highway, Ahmedabad, Gujarat, India. ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Ms. Jainab Vanak, Advocate appears on behalf of Mr. Mateen Siddiqui, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Dr. Nirmal Shukla, Sr. Advocate with Ms. Priya Mishra, Advocate For the State : Mr. Ajay Khumrani, Panel Lawyer For respondent No. 6 : Mr. Aniket Verma, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Jitendra Pali, Advocate Hon’ble Shri Justice Narendra Kumar Vyas Order on Board 11/07/2025 1. Heard on I.A. No. 04 for amendment in cause title of the instant petition. 2. On due consideration, I.A. No. 04 is allowed. 3. Let necessary amendment be carried out by the petitioner in the cause title during course of the day. 4. With the consent of the parties, the matter is heard finally. 5. The petitioner has preferred this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India being dissatisfied with the award dated 24.06. 2013 passed by respondent No.3/Land Acquisition Officer Surajpur granting compensation for the land acquired by them. 6. Facts of the case in brief as projected by the petitioner are that Chhattisgarh State Power General Company Limited CSPGCL Vishrampur, District Surajpur moved an application for acquiring private land for the purpose of coal transportation through rail link for Bhaiyathan Thermal Power Project. Land Acquisition Officer has initiated proceedings under Land Acquisition Act 1894 (hereinafter referred to the Act). 3 Thereafter land acquisition officer sought information from the respondent Tahsildar regarding objection raised by the land owners, according to the petitioner he has preferred representation on 21.09.2013. It has been contended that no redressal of the grievance of petitioner on his objection dated 21.03.2013 has been considered by the Land Acquisition Officer and without considering the provisions of Section 23 of the Act, 1894 and without considering the provisions of Chhattisgarh Rehabilitation Policy, 2007 (as amended), the proceedings were done and total award of Rs.3,68,35,828/-has been passed. It has also been contended that for Khasra No.669 acquired land 0.040 hectare compensation of Rs.98,840/- and for the Khasra No.685 area 0.300 hectare compensation Rs.7,41,300/- respectively total compensation of Rs.8,40,140/- have been ordered to be paid which is on lower side, as such the petitioner submitted an objection before the Tahsildar vide dated 31.07.2014, thereby mentioning inter-alia that earlier the compensation was fixed as Rs.9,42,613/- whereas the land acquisition officer has passed an award on 21.03.2013 for Rs.8,40,140/-. Thus, there is a difference of Rs. 1,02,473/-. It has also been contented that based on the objection raised by petitioner the Additional Collector Surajpur has sent a letter to the Tahsildar Ramanuj Nagar thereby directing to submit a report on the objection raised by petitioner. But nothing has been done. It has also been contended that SDM Surrajpur alongwith his team forcefully took the land of the petitioner and also misbehaved with the petitioner. The petitioner again submitted a representation on 03.06.2015 before the Tahsildar Ramanuj Nagar but no action has been taken. On this factual matrix, the petitioner has prayed for following reliefs. 4 10.1 That, the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to set-aside/quash the impugned award a compensation vide Annexure-P/1; 10.2 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to pass the orders and direct the respondent State to acquire the entire land of the petitioner bearing Khasra No.669, 685, area 0.41 & 0.49 hectare respectively total area 0.90 hectare situated at village Dauna, P.H. No.21, R.I. Circle & Tahsil Ramanuj Nagar, District Surajpur (C.G.) thereby to award proper compensation. 10.3 Any other relief or relief(s) which this Hon'ble Court may think proper in view of the facts and circumstances of the case may also kindly be granted. 7. Learned Sr. Counsel for the respondent No. 7 would submit that the writ petition is not maintainable as the petitioner may take reference under Section 18 of the Act wherein an application for reference be forwarded to the District Judge by the concerning Collector for enhancement and for other accidental relief is provided, as such the writ petition is not maintainable at this juncture and would pray for dismissal of the petition. 8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 9. From perusal of section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, it is quite vivid that if any land owner is not satisfied with the quantum of compensation he may approach before the Collector for enhancement of compensation thereafter a reference will be made to the District Judge having jurisdiction over the property to adjudicate the case by following due process prescribed under the Act. 10. The objection made by learned Sr. Advocate for respondent No. 7 with regard to maintainability of petition is sustainable and accordingly it is upheld and the writ petition is dismissed as not maintainable at this juncture. Even otherwise for actual determination of quantum of 5 compensation then the facts and evidence have to be considered by the concerning court. It is equally required for actual determination of quantum of compensation facts finding enquiry is required to be conducted which can be done by Referred Court not by the High Court, therefore, writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is not maintainable. 11. However, the record of the case would show that petition was filed on 19.05.2016 and since then it is pending within three years from the date of award, as such there will be no hindrance for referring the matter by the Collector to the District Court for adjudication to determine the quantum of compensation. It is further directed that if the petitioner submits an application for reference within 60 days from the date of receipt of the copy of the order, neither Collector nor trial court will take plea of limitation and will decide reference case on its own merit. 12. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of. Sd/- (Narendra Kumar Vyas) Judge Santosh