1 / 4 2025:CGHC:55335 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 44 of 2025 Yusuf Khan S/o Shri Najaruddin Aged About 50 Years House No. 63, Ward No. 09, Devpura, Tehsil- Pandaria, District- Kabirdham, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Public Works Department, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Raipur, District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - The Collector Kabirdham, District- Kabirdham, Chhattisgarh 3 - Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue) Kabirdham, District- Kabirdham, Chhattisgarh 4 - Executive Engineer Cum Member Secretary Project Implementation Unit, Kawardha, District- Kabirdham, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner : Mr. Harshmander Rastogi, Advocate For State/Respondents : Mr. Rishabh Bisen, Panel Lawyer SB: Hon'ble Shri Parth Prateem Sahu, Judge Order on Board Digitally signed by PRAVEEN KUMAR SINHA Date: 2025.11.18 10:58:40 +0530 2 / 4 13/11/2025 1. The petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking following reliefs: “10.1. That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue writ, order or directions quashing the impugned judgment dated 26.09.2024 (Annexure P/1) issued by the Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue), Pandariyia, Kabirdham, Chhattisgarh. 10.2. That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue writs, orders or directions to the respondent authorities to pay the earlier fixed sum of Rs.12,24,210/- as the compensation for his land along with the interest. 10.3. That, alternatively this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue writs, orders or directions to the respondent authorities to recalculate the amount of compensation taking the correct date of acquiring of land and other relevant factors. 10.4. That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to grant any other relief (s), which is deemed fit and proper in the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case.” 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has received proposal from respondent authority to purchase his land admeasuring 0.073 hectare of kh. no. 228/2 situated at Village- Devpura, Tahsil- Pandariya, District- Kawardha for sum of Rs.4,08,070/- and it was also stated that he will be granted further amount towards solatium etc. Total compensation proposed to be paid was Rs.12,24,210/-. Petitioner being satisfied with the proposal has 3 / 4 given consent to sell his land to respondent on mutual basis which is to be used for purpose of construction of road. After receipt of consent of petitioner, beneficiary department i.e. Pradhan Mantri Gram Sadak Yojna, Project Implementation Unit, Kawardha, has prepared a cheque of Rs.12,24,210/- dated 24.07.2018 in the name of Collector in whose name land is to be acquired. However, when even after lapse of considerable period, cheque is not disbursed in favour of petitioner, he filed a writ petition before this Court bearing WPC No.2607 of 2019 which came to be disposed off vide order dated 31.07.2019 directing respondent therein to disburse the amount of compensation, computed and calculated in favour of petitioner. When order passed in writ petition is not complied with, contempt petition was also filed bearing Contempt Case (C) No.783 of 2019 and only thereafter, Sub Divisional Officer (R) has passed Award dated 26.09.2024 reducing amount of compensation which was earlier calculated and proposed by the Collector, Land Acquisition Department. 3. Learned counsel for the respondents/State would oppose the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner and submits that though earlier proposal was based on mutual purchase, however, subsequently, the authority re-considered to acquire the land of petitioner under the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (for short “Act of 2013”) and accordingly proceedings were drawn which is filed as Annexure R-2. He contended that the amount of compensation is computed and awarded vide Annexure P-1 in accordance with provision under the Act of 2013 and, therefore, if the petitioner is 4 / 4 aggrieved in any manner with regard to quantum of compensation calculated and computed, he is having other alternate remedy under the Act of 2013. 4. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents annexed along with writ petition. 5. Considering the submissions of learned counsel for the respective parties and also considering facts and circumstances of the case, in particularly that, Sub Divisional Officer (R) has passed award being the Land Acquisition Officer under the Act of 2013 in a proceeding drawn under the Act of 2013, in the opinion of this Court, writ petition would not be maintainable and the petitioner is having efficacious and alternate remedy available to file appropriate application under the provisions of the Act of 2013 before the competent authority. 6. For the foregoing discussions, I am not inclined to entertain this writ petition and, accordingly, it is dismissed, reserving liberty to petitioner to avail other alternate remedy available to him under the Act of 2013 for redressal of his grievance as raised in this writ petition. Sd/- Sd/- (Parth Prateem Sahu) Judge Praveen