-1- 2025:CGHC:19377 NAFR HIGH COURT of CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 883 of 2021 1 - Jhuriyarin Bai W/o Dhanaram, Aged About 60 Years R/o Village Kayabandha, Tahsil Arang, District Raipur (Chhattisgarh). 2 - Dhanaram, S/o Tularam, Aged About 74 Years R/o Village Kayabandha, Tahsil Arang, District Raipur Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through Chief Secretary, Chhattisgarh Government, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur, District Raipur (Chhattisgarh), District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 2 - State of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Department of Revenue And Disaster Management, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh. 3 - Secretary, State of Chhattisgarh, Urban Development Department, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh. 4 - Secretary, State of Chhattisgarh, Housing And Environment Department, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh. 5- Collector, Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 6 - Naya Raipur Development Authority, Through Chief Executive officer, office At Naya Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh. 7 - Sub Divisional officer-Cum-Land Acquisition officer, Arang, District Raipur Chhattisgarh. 8- Sub Divisional officer-Cum-Land Acquisition officer, Abhanpur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh. Digitally signed by NADIM MOHLE -2- ... Respondent(s) For Petitioners : Mr. Sanjay Kumar, Advocate For State : Mr. Shubham Bajpai, Panel Lawyer For Respondent No.6 : Mr. Animesh Tiwari, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 29.04.2025 1) The petitioner has challenged the impugned notification dated 30.01.2014 issued by respondent no. 1, alleging that certain villages were arbitrarily declared as urban areas with mala fide intent to defeat the objectives of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013. It is contended that the notification was issued without following due procedure of law, and the subsequent land acquisition award, based on the said notification, is unsustainable and warrants reconsideration. 2) Learned counsel appearing for the respondents would submit that the remedy available to the petitioner is to move an application before the concerned Collector under Section 64 of the Act, 2013 requesting the said officer to refer the matter to the appropriate authority. 3) Let the petitioner move application before the concerned Collector within a period of one month from today. On such application being made, the concerned Collector shall do the needful in accordance -3- with law to refer the matter to the appropriate Authority. 4) The writ petition is accordingly disposed of. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge Nadim