1 2025:CGHC:50510 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR REVP No. 308 of 2025 1 - Anjani Kumar Tamrakar S/o Shri Ramshankar Tamrakar Aged About 54 Years R/o Urmila Kunj, Ward No. 48, In Front Of Laxmi Niwas, Lodhipara Sarkanda, Bilaspur, Tahsil And District Bilaspur (C.G.). 2 - Smt. Seema Tamrakar W/o Shri Anjani Kumar Tamrakar, Aged About 52 Years R/o Urmila Kunk, Ward No. 48, In Front Of Laxmi Niwas, Lodhipara Sarkanda, Bilaspur, Tehsil And District Bilaspur (C.G.). 3 - Vishal Gupta S/o Late Shri Anand Gupta Aged About 33 Years R/o Mangla Chowk Bilaspur, Tehsil And District Bilaspur (C.G.). 4 - Rahul Gupta S/o Late Shri Anand Gupta, Aged About 53 Years R/o Mangla Chowk Bilaspur, Tehsil And District Bilaspur (C.G.). 5 - Nilam Gupta Wd/o Late Shri Anand Gupta, Aged About 53 Years R/o Mangla Chowk Bilaspur, Tehsil And District Bilaspur (C.G.). ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Revenue And Disaster Management Department, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Naya Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.). 2 - Union Of India, Through Secretary, Ministry Of Road, Transport And Highways, New Delhi. 3 - Collector, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur (C.G.). 4 - Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue)- Cum- Land Acquisition Officer, RAGHVENDRA JAT Digitally signed by RAGHVENDRA JAT 2 Bilaspur, District Bilaspur (C.G.). 5 - Nayab Tahsildar Sakri, Tehsil Sakri, District Bilaspur (C.G.). 6 - National Highway Authority Of India, Through Project Director, Project Implementation Unit, Bilaspur, Office At- D-61, H.I.G.-1, Abhilasha Parisar, Behind New Bus Stand, Tifra, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur (C.G.). ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Devendra Patel, Advocate. For Respondent(s)/State : Mr. Ankur Kashyap, Dy. G.A. For Respondent No. 6 : Mr. Dhiraj Kumar Wankhede, Advocate. For Respondent/UOI : Mr. Bhupendra Kumar Pandey, CGC. Hon’ble Mr. Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Order on Board 09/10/2025 1. By way of this review petition, the petitioner has prayed for following prayer:- “It is, therefore most humbly prayed that this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to allow this review petition and review the order of dismissal of the writ petition dated 07.05.2025 (ANNEXURE - A/1) passed in W.P.(C) No.2015/2022 and kindly be pleased to dispose the writ petition in the light of identical orders passed by this Hon'ble Court, in the interest of justice.” 2. Brief facts of the case, is that the present application seeks a review and recall of the order of dismissal dated 07.05.2025 passed by this Hon'ble Court in WP(C) No. 2015/2022, whereby 3 the writ petition filed by the petitioner was dismissed on merit. Earlier, the petitioner had filed the writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, challenging the illegal, arbitrary, and high-handed actions of the Respondents, specifically that the Respondent NHAI utilized the petitioner’s valuable land for a highway without acquiring it lawfully, violating the petitioner’s constitutional right to property under Article 300-A. According to the demarcation report, despite two rounds of land acquisition, an additional 0.22 acres (approximately 1894 sq. meters) of land was affected but neither acquired nor compensated. Although compensation was paid for 604 sq. meters acquired in subsequent awards, the petitioner is aggrieved that no compensation was given for the extra land used by NHAI. The Hon'ble Court, after hearing and considering the replies, dismissed the petition on the grounds of an alternative remedy under Section 3(g)(5) of the National Highway Act, 1956, as reflected in the impugned order uploaded on the High Court website. The petitioner submits that this case involves a serious violation of their constitutional right to property, as the land was taken without due process. In identical cases, this Hon'ble Court has protected petitioners’ rights, and thus, it is humbly requested that the present petition be reviewed and compensation granted for the additional land unlawfully utilized by NHAI. 4 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he has filed this review petition on the ground that during the course of argument it was transpired that though the petition is not maintainable, however, the petitioner may file appropriate application before the competent authority and the competent authority would demarcate the land of the petitioner and if any grievance subsist they may decide the same. He further submits that this petition has been dismissed on the ground that this petition is not maintainable as per Section3 (G) (5) of the Act. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel representing the respondents firmly opposes the aforementioned position, articulating a well- reasoned and detailed argument in support of their stance. They challenge the validity and applicability of the claims put forth by the opposing party, meticulously addressing each point with legal precedents, statutory interpretations, and factual clarifications. Through a comprehensive and methodical presentation, the respondents’ counsel seeks to demonstrate why the position advocated by the other side should be rejected, emphasizing the legal and practical grounds that underpin their opposition. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and further considering the fact that the present review petition seeking recall 5 of the dismissal order dated 07.05.2025 in WP(C) No. 2015/2022 is dismissed. The Hon'ble Court, after careful consideration of the arguments and submissions, reaffirms that the writ petition was not maintainable under Section 3(g)(5) of the National Highway Act, 1956, as the petitioner has an alternative remedy to approach the competent authority for demarcation and grievance redressal regarding the alleged unauthorized use of additional land by NHAI. Since the petitioner has not exhausted the statutory remedies available, and given the clear legal position upheld in the impugned order, the review petition does not warrant interference and is accordingly disposed of. 7. The petitioner is always at liberty to file appropriate application, this order will not come into the way of the petitioner and the concerned respondent authorities will decide the same in accordance with law. SD/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Raghu Jat