2025:CGHC:19145 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 2069 of 2015 1 - Suraj Sharma S/o Baijnath Sharma, Aged About 34 Years Caste Bramhan, R/o In Front Of Polytechnic College, Chakradhar Nagar, Raigarh P.S. Kotwali, District Raigarh Chhattisgarh, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Department Of Industries, Mahanadi Bhawan, New Mantralay, District Raipur Chhattisgarh, Chhattisgarh 2 - The Chief General Manager, District Industry And Centre, District Raigarh Chhattisgarh, District : Raigarh, Chhattisgarh 3 - The Collector, Raigarh, District Raigarh Chhattisgarh, District : Raigarh, Chhattisgarh 4 - The Sub Divisional Officer Revenue, Pusour District Raigarh Chhattisgarh, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 5 - The Tahsildar, Pusour District Raigarh Chhattisgarh, District : Raigarh, Chhattisgarh 6 - The Land Acquisition Officer, District Raigarh Chhattisgarh, District : Raigarh, Chhattisgarh 7 - The Manager, National Thermal Power Plant, Lara Project, District Raigarh Chhattsigarh, District : Raigarh, Chhattisgarh ... Respondents For Petitioner : Mr. N.K. Malaviya, Advocate. For State : Mr. S.P. Kale, Additional Advocate General. For Res. No. 7/NTPC Mr. Anuroop Panda, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Justice Narendra Kumar Vyas Order on Board 28/04 /2025 1. This petition has been filed by the petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for following reliefs:- “(i) This Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent No. 6 & 7 to remit back the land of the petitioner in view of the provision of Section 11(A) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1897 or to pay the proper compensation all along with the interest from the date of publication of the declaration. ARUN KUMAR DEWANGAN Digitally signed by ARUN KUMAR DEWANGAN Date: 2025.06.05 16:14:05 +0530 (ii) This Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction in nature of mandamus commanding the respondents to proceed the acquisition proceeding in respect of the land of the petitioner, in accordance with the provisions of Act, 2013 and elapsed the present proceedings drawn against him. (iii) This Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent authorities to provide the benefits of Rehabilitation Scheme extended to the land owner. (iv) This Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to grant any other relief, as it may deem fit.” 2. During pendency of this petition, the Land Acquisition Officer has passed an award on 31.03.2023 wherein compensation of the land has already been assessed but the same was not deposited, therefore, this Court on 14.08.2023 directed respondent No. 7/NTPC to deposit the compensation amount within 15 days and in pursuance of direction issued by this Court, the beneficiary of the land i.e. respondent No. 7/NTPC has already deposited the compensation amount and the Land Acquisition Officer has initiated the proceeding for disbursement of the same. 3. In view of the above factual matrix, learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the subsequent award passed by the Land Acquisition Officer on 31.03.2023 is bad in law as earlier the land was acquired by CSIDC for NTPC by invoking emergency clause i.e. Section 11 (A) of the Act, 1984, therefore, the subsequent award passed by the Land Acquisition Officer deserves to be set aside. He would further submit that the emergency clause was exercised by the Land Acquisition Officer without any compensation paid to the petitioner, therefore, the compensation should be assessed by the Land Acquisition Officer from the date emergency clause was exercised by the authorities in acquiring the petitioner’s land. 4. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent No. 7/NTPC would submit that the award has been passed and in pursuance of the same, the amount of compensation has already been deposited and now the petitioner has alternate remedy to take recourse under the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (for short “the Act, 2013”) by making application before the Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Authority constituted as per the provisions of Section 51 of the Act, 2013, therefore, the writ petition at this juncture is not maintainable. 5. Considering the fact that the award has been passed on 31.03.2023 and the petitioner is not satisfied with the award, he has remedy of making application before the Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Authority. Accordingly, it is directed that if the petitioner files an application before the concerned authority within 90 days from the date of receipt of copy of the order passed by this Court raising all the permissible grounds challenging subsequent award passed by the Land Acquisition Officer, the concerned authority will not take plea of limitation as the award has been passed during pendency of this petition and will decide grievances of the petitioner on its own merits without insisting for delay. 6. In view of the aforesaid observation and direction, the instant writ petition stands disposed of granting liberty as aforestated. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed anything on merits of the case and it is for the authorities to take decision on its own merits in accordance with law. Sd/- (Narendra Kumar Vyas) Judge Arun