1 2025:CGHC:17715 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 3367 of 2022 1 - Laxmikant Kannauj S/o Late Baldau Prasad Kannauj Aged About 40 Years R/o Village Parsada Tehsil Bilha District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioner versus 1 - Union Of India Through Secretary Ministry Of Road Transport And Highways New Delhi. 2 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary Pulic Works Department Mahnadi Bhawan Mantralay Naya Raipur District Raipur Chhattisgarh. 3 - Chief Engineer, Public Works Department National Highway Division Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh. 4 - Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue) Cum Land Acquisition Officer Bilaspur District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh. 5 - Collector, Bilaspur District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh. 6 - National Highway Authority Of India, Through Its Project Director, Project Implementation Unit, Office At Abhilasha Parisar, Bilaspur District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent(s) (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner : Mr. Sushobhit Singh, Advocate For Respondent No.1 : Mr. Tushar Dhar Diwan, Central Govt. Counsel For State/Respondent/s : Ms. Anuja Sharma, Panel Lawyer Hon'ble Shri Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad RAVI SHANKAR MANDAVI Digitally signed by RAVI SHANKAR MANDAVI Date: 2025.04.21 20:07:12 +0530 2 Order on Board 17/04/2025 1. Heard Mr. Sushobhit Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. Tushar Dhar Diwan, Central Govt. Counsel for respondent No.1 as well as Mr. Anmol Sharma, learned Panel Lawyer for the State/respondent/s. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner owned the land bearing Khasra No.89/3 Village Parsada, Tehsil Bilha, District Bilaspur, admeasuring 0.29 acres, the respondents without acquisition of the same and without any lawful authority have constructed a road over a part of such land; therefore, the petitioner is left with only 0.18 acres and the other land has been utilized for construction of road. He refers to Annexure P/1 & P-2 and would submit that when the petitioner came to know of the fact the demarcation was carried out and it was found that the petitioner is only in occupation of 0.18 acres land. Therefore, the respondents may be directed to demarcate the land of the petitioner to find out whether the road has been constructed over the Khasra No. 89/3 and if the road has been constructed upon the land of the petitioner, the respondents may be directed to initiate due procedure of law to acquire the same. 3. Considering the nature of averments made, I do not find any reason to keep this petition pending, if the land of the petitioner 3 has been acquired otherwise than due course of law and they have not been paid the compensation, then in such case, the petitioner is entitled to get the compensation. Therefore, the State Authority Respondent No.3 along with Respondent No.4 are directed to take up the exercise to ascertain whether the land of the petitioner was enveloped for the construction of the road or not. It is further directed that demarcation may also be carried out and if it is found that the land of the petitioner was taken up for construction of roads without payment of any compensation then in such case the compensation should be paid in accordance with law after following due process of law, it is directed that all endeavor to complete the proceeding be made within a further period of 1 year. It is made clear that this Court has not made any opinion on merits of the case. 4. With the aforementioned observation/s and direction/s, this writ petition stands disposed of. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Ravi Mandavi