1 2025:CGHC:51038 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 5273 of 2025 1 - Lalita Chandrakar W/o Dr. Narrottam Chandrakara Aged About 61 Years R/o Village- Riko, Post- Paloda (Mandir Hasaud), Tahsil- Arang, District- Raipur, C.G. ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Chief Secretary, Department Of Housing And Environment, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Naya Raipur, Raipur, Distt. Raipur, C.G. 2 - Department Of Agriculture And Animal Husbandary Through Secretary, Government Of Chhattisgarh, Collectorate, Raipur, C.G. 3 - District Collector-Cum-Officiating Dy. Secretary Government Of Chhattisgarh, Collectorate, Raipur, C.G. 4 - Land Acquisition Officer / Sub-Divisional Officer Tahsil Arang, Abhanpur, District Raipur, C.G. 5 - Commissioner Office Near Ghadi Chowk Raipur, District Raipur, C.G. 6 - Chief Executive Officer Naya Raipur Development Authority, New Rajendra Nagar, Infront Of Vijeta Complex, R.D.A. Building, Raipur, C.G. ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Sanjay Kumar Agrawal, Advocate For Respondent/State For Respondents : : Mrs. Upasna Mehta, Dy. G.A. Mr. Anuroop Panda, Advocate Hon’ble Shri Justice Arvind Kumar Verma, Judge Order on Board 14/10/2025 1. With the consent of the parties, heard finally. 2. The petitioner has filed this writ petition on the following reliefs: 2 “10.1. That the Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to call the entire record of the case from the respondents. 10.2 This Hon’ble Court be pleased to quash the entire land acquisition proceedings vide case no. 8/82 year 2012- 13, in village Riko P.H. No. 21, Tahsil Arang, District- Raipur (C.G.) including the proposed award dated 31.12.2015. 10.3 That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to hold that the entire land acquisition proceeding shall be lapsed due to respondent State has not followed the Section 25 of the Right to Fair Compensation Act, 2013. 10.4 That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash the notification under Section 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. 10.5 That, this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to pass any other relief that this Hon’ble Court may please deem fit and proper.” 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is challenging the entire land acquisition proceeding initiated by the 3 State Government without complying the mandatory provisions of Nagar Tatha Gram Nivesh Adhiniyam, 1973. The petitioner is also challenging the entire acquisition proceeding in Land Acquisition Case No. 8/82 year 2012-13, in village Riko, PH No. 21, Tahsil Arang, District Raipur because it is contrary to mandatory provision of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and the mandatory provisions of Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013. The petitioner is also challenging the award dated 31.12.2015 passed by the SDO-cum-Land Acquisition Officer, Arang/ Abhanpur, District Raipur (C.G.) because the same has been passed within 12 months from the issuance of Section 6 notification. The respondent State i.e. SDO-cum-Land Acquisition Officer as well as the Collector, Raipur has not following the provisions of Section 25 of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013. This Hon'ble Court in WPC No. 791/2016 vide order dated 27.11.2018 has quashed the impugned Land Acquisition Proceedings in respect of several other villagers of the same village Riko. Thereafter, the said matter had challenged by the NRDA before the Division Bench which has also been dismissed by the Hon'ble Division Bench in WA No. 30/2019 on 25.07.2024. On the same footing the several land owners also challenged the said acquisition proceedings which is also being dismissed by the Hon'ble Co-ordinate Bench in WPC No. 1307/2019. Learned 4 counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners have not received any compensation amount from the respondent authorities in respect of the petitioner’s land. 4. Learned counsel for the State and respondent contended opposed the contention raised by the counsel for the petitioner and submits that the compensation has been assessed under the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013. He further submits that the petitioners have not suffered any pecuniary loss therefore there is no good ground to entertain this petition and the petition is liable to be dismissed. 5. Heard learned counsel for the respective parties at length and perused the record with utmost circumspection. 6. During the course of argument, learned counsel for respondent no. 6 has placed some documents on record and a copy of the same has been supplied to the counsel for the petitioner also. The said document is taken on record. The said document is a letter no. 6288 6(1)/भूमि-प्रभाग / NRANVP/2025, नया रायपुर अटल नगर issued by the respondent no. 6 on 11.07.2025 to respondent no. 4 and Nayab Tahsildar which reads as under: "उपरोक्त मिषयांतगत लेख है ाननीय उच्च न्यायालय द्वारा WA No. 30/2019 ें पारिरत आदेश के परिरपालन ें मिधि( अनुसार कायाही करने का कष्ट करें। साथ ही अगत हो मिक ग्रा-रीको भू-अर्जन प्रकरण क्रांक-08/अ-82 ष 2012-13 ें पारिरत अॉर्ड मिदनांक 31.12.2015 को मिनरस्त मिकया गया 5 है। प्रकरण ें कु ल खातेदार-122. कु ल खसरा नं.-256, कु ल रकबा-123.48 हे. हेतु अार्ड राशिश रूपये 2,71,41,400 को (नादेश क्रांक-032211 मिदनांक 28.09.2011 एं राशिश रूपये 63,72,65,090 को (नादेश क्रांक-062790 मिदनांक 23.01.2016 इस प्रकार कु ल राशिश 66,44,06,490 रूपये कायालय भू-अर्जन कायालय ें र्जा मिकया र्जा चुका है। कृ पया उक्त राशिश इस कायालय को ापस करने का कष्ट करें।" 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to the order dated 06.08.2025 passed by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in WPC No. 1307 of 2019 wherein this Court has held in para 12 and 13 which reads as under: “12. In view of the above discussion, I have no hesitation in holding that the entire land acquisition proceedings stand vitiated for non- compliance with the mandatory provisions of Section 25 of the Act, 2013. 13. Accordingly, the land acquisition proceedings involved in the present case are hereby quashed. However, the respondents shall be at liberty to initiate fresh proceedings if they still require the land for a public purpose, in accordance with law.” 8. Looking to the entire facts and circumstances of the case and submissions of the counsels, it is crystal clear that the mandatory provision of Section 25 of the Act, 2013 categorically prescribes 6 that if the award is not passed within the said period, the entire acquisition proceedings shall lapse. 9. Therefore, this Court held that the entire land acquisition proceedings stand vitiated for non-compliance with the mandatory provisions of Section 25 of the Act, 2013. Accordingly, the land acquisition proceedings involved in the present case are hereby quashed. However, the respondents shall be at liberty to initiate fresh proceedings if they still require the land for a public purpose, in accordance with law. 10. Thus, the present petition is disposed of. Sd/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) JUDGE Madhurima