1 2025:CGHC:55512-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WA No. 822 of 2025 Jayesh Kumar Bhatia S/o Late Ram Kishan Bhatia Aged About 53 Years R/o 286, Jawahar Nagar, Behind Agrasen Bhawan Raipur, P.O. Main Branch Raipur - 492011, Police Station K.K. Road Moudhapara Raipur Chhattisgarh --Appellant(s) Versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of Revenue, Mahanadi Bhawan, Naya Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - The Commissioner Raipur Division And Ex-Officio Secretary To Govt. Of Chhattisgarh Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh 3 - The Collector Raipur Division And Ex-Officio Secretary To Govt. Of Chhattisgarh Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh 4 - The Sub-Divisional Officer Cum Land Acquisition Officer Arang/ Abhanpur, Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh 5 - The New Raipur Development Authority Naya Raipur, Through Its Chief Executive Officer Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh Respondent(s) (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) For Appellant : Mr. Sourabh Agrawal on behalf of Mr. Ratnesh Agrawal, Advocate For State : Mr. Y.S. Thakur, Addl. Advocate General For Respondent No.5: Mr. Risabh Bajaj on behalf of Mr. Sumesh Bajaj, Advocate RAHUL JHA Digitally signed by RAHUL JHA Date: 2025.11.17 10:43:41 +0530 2 Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon’ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru, Judge Order on Board Per Bibhu Datta Guru, J 14/11/2025 1. Heard on I.A. No. 01/2025, an application seeking condonation of delay in filing the instant Writ Appeal. 2. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that due to inadvertence, the period of limitation was wrongly calculated, resulting in a delay of two days in filing the appeal. 3. On due consideration, the delay in filing the appeal is condoned. Accordingly, I.A. No. 01/2025 stands disposed of. 4. Also heard on admission. 5. The Writ Appeal has been preferred by the appellant seeking following prayer:- “It is, therefore, prayed that this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to allow this Writ Appeal and set-aside the order dated 20/08/2025 passed by Hon’ble Single Bench of this Court in Writ Petition (C) No. 645/2013 parties “Jayesh Kumar Bhatia v. State of Chhattisgarh & Others (Annexure-A/1) and further be pleased to allow the Writ Petition, is in the interest of justice.” 3 6. This Court observes that in a batch of Writ Petitions, the leading case being WPC No. 650/2013, including the petition filed by the present appellant, the learned Single Judge, after due analysis of the facts and circumstances, dismissed all the petitions by a common order dated 20/08/2025. 7. It is further noted that one of the writ petitioners, whose petition was dismissed in the said batch, preferred Writ Appeal No. 807/2025 challenging the very same common order. The said appeal was heard by this Bench on 10/11/2025, and upon due appreciation of the submissions and material on record, this Court passed the following findings: “15. Having given anxious consideration to the submissions advanced on behalf of the parties, and upon a thorough scrutiny of the pleadings, documents and the reasoning assigned by the learned Single Judge, we are of the considered view that no case for interference is made out. The learned Single Judge has meticulously examined the validity of the acquisition proceedings, the applicability of the urgency clause, the issuance of the relevant notifications and the effect of the award already passed. The conclusions recorded therein are supported by the material on record and are in harmony with the settled principles governing judicial review in matters of land acquisition. 16. The appellant/writ petitioner has not been able to demonstrate any procedural irregularity of a substantial nature, nor have they shown any breach of mandatory provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 that would vitiate the proceedings. The contention regarding non-taking of possession, as also the reliance placed upon the subsequent order dated 11.03.2022, does not undermine the legality of the acquisition already concluded 4 7. The plea founded upon Section 18 of the Act has likewise been rightly repelled, and we find no reason to take a different view. In the absence of any material to establish perversity, arbitrariness, or violation of statutory mandate, the grounds urged in the Writ Appeal are unsustainable. The impugned order dated 20/08/2025 does not suffer from any error warranting interference in appellate jurisdiction. 18. Consequently, the Writ Appeal fails and is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.” 8. Considering the fact that W.A. No. 807/2025, arising out of the same common order dated 20/08/2025 and raising identical issues, has already been dismissed by this Bench, this Court finds no ground to entertain the present appeal on the same issues already adjudicated upon. 9. Accordingly, the Writ Appeal stands dismissed. Sd/- Sd/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Rahul/Jyoti