1 2025:CGHC:16082 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 6426 of 2011 Order Reserved on 05/11/2024 Order Delivered on 04/04/2025 1 - Smt. Usha Devi Singhania, W/o. Shri Lalit Kumar Singhania, aged about 57 years, R/o. “MANJUSHA” 15/480, Rajbhawan Road, Civil Lines, Raipur (C.G.) ---Petitioner(s) Versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Revenue Department, Mantralaya, DKS Bhawan, Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - The Collector Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 3 - Office In-Charge Land Acquisition Branch, Collectorate Officer, Raipur, Chhattisgarh 4 - Sub Divisional Office Revenue-Cum-Land Acquisition Officer, Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 5 - Naya Raipur Development Authority Through The Chief Executive Officer, Naya Raipur Development Authority, New Mantralaya Mahanadi Gate, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh --- Respondent(s) WPC No. 6427 of 2011 1 - Seth Shri Jeevan Lal Singhania Family Trust, Having its office at "MANJUSHA" 15/480, Rajbhawan Road, Civil Lines, Raipur (Chhattisgarh), Through its Trustee Shri Lalit Kumar Singhania, S/o Late Shri Jeevan Lal Singhania aged about 58 years R/o "MANJUSHA" 15/480, Rajbhawan Road, Civil Lines, Raipur (Chhattisgarh) ---Petitioner(s) VEDPRAKASH DEWANGAN Digitally signed by VEDPRAKASH DEWANGAN Date: 2025.06.23 20:11:43 +0530 2 Versus 1 - State of Chhattisgarh through Secretary, Revenue Department, Mantralaya, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (Chhattisgarh) 2- Collector, Raipur, District- Raipur (Chhattisgarh) 3- Officer In-charge, Land Acquisition Collectorate, (Chhattisgarh) Branch, Raipur 4- Sub-Divisional Revenue-cum-Land Officer, Acquisition Officer, Raipur (Chhattisgarh) 5- Naya Raipur Development Authority, Through The Chief Executive Officer, Naya Raipur Development Authority, Near Mantralaya Mahanadi Gate, District, Raipur (Chhattisgarh) --- Respondent(s) WPC No. 6428 of 2011 1 - Suresh Poddar S/o- Late Chhedi Lal Poddar Aged About 53 Years R/o Manjusha 15/480 Rajbhawan Road Civil Lines Raipur (C.G.) ---Petitioner(s) Versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh, Through Secretary, Revenue Department, Mantralaya, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (C.G.) 2 - Collector Raipur, District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 3 - Officer In-Charge, Land Acquisition Branch, Collectorate, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 4 - Sub-Divisional Officer Revenue-Cum-Land Acquisition Officer, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 5 - Naya Raipur Development Authority Through The Chief Executive Officer, Naya Raipur Development Authority, Near Mantralaya Mahanadi Gate, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh --- Respondent(s) 3 WPC No. 1648 of 2013 1 - Smt. Usha Devi Singhania W/o Shri Lalit Kumar Sighania, Aged About 59 Years R/o Manjusha 15/480, Rajbhawan Road, Civil Lines, Ps Civil Lines, Raipur, Distt Raipur Chhattisgarh ---Petitioner(s) Versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Revenue Department, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Capital Complex, Naya Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - The Collector Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 3 - Office In-Charge Land Acquisition Branch, Collectorate Officer, Raipur, Chhattisgarh 4 - Sub Divisional Office Revenue-Cum-Land Acquisition Officer, Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 5 - Naya Raipur Development Authority Through The Chief Executive Officer, Naya Raipur Development Authority, New Rajendra Nagar, Opposite Vijeta Complex, R.D.A. Bauilding Govind Sarang, Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh --- Respondent(s) WPC No. 1649 of 2013 1 - Suresh Poddar S/o Lt Chhedi Lal Poddar Aged About 55 Years R/o Manjusha 15/480, Rajbhawan Road, Civil Lines, Ps Civil Lines, Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh ---Petitioner(s) Versus 4 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Revenue Department, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Capital Complex, Naya Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - The Collector Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 3 - Officer In Charge Land Acquisition Branch, Collectorate, Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 4 - Sub Divisional Officer Revenue Cum Land Acquisition Officer, Raipur, Distt Raipur, Chhattisgarh 5 - Naya Raipur Development Authority Through The Chief Executive Officer, Naya Raipur Development Authority, New Rajendra Nagar, Opposite Vijeta Complex, R.D.A. Bauilding Govind Sarang, Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh --- Respondent(s) WPC No. 1651 of 2013 1 - Seth Shri Jeevan Lal Singhania Family Trust Having Its Office At Manjusha 15/480, Rajbhawan Road, Civil Lines, Raipur C.G., Through Its Trustee Shri Lalit Kumar Singhania, S/o Late Shri Jeevan Lal Singhania Aged About 60 Yrs. R/o Manjusha 15/480, Rajbhawan Road, Civil Lines, Ps Civil Lines, Raipur C.G. , Chhattisgarh ---Petitioner(s) Versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Revenue Department, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Capital Complex, Naya Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - The Collector Raipur, District Raipur C.G., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 3 - Officer In-Charge, Land Acquisition Branch, Collectorate, Raipur Chhattisgarh 4 - Sub Divisional Officer, Revenue-Cum-Land Acquisition Officer, Raipur C.G., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 5 5 - Naya Raipur Development Authority, Through The Chief Executive Officer, Naya Raipur Development Authority, New Rajendra Nagar, Opposite Vijeta Complex, R.D.A. Building Govind Sarang, Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh --- Respondent(s) WPC No. 1965 of 2014 1 - Seth Shri Jeevan Lal Singhania Family Trust Through Its Trustee Shri Lalit Kumar Singhania S/o Late Shri Jeevan Lal Singhania Age 60 Yrs R/o Manjusha 15/480, Rajbhawan Road Civil Lines P.S. Civil Lines Raipur, Chhattisgarh --- Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh, Through The Secretary, Department Of Revenue, Thana Naya Raipur, Secretariat Maha Nadi Bhawan, Raipur C.G., Chhattisgarh 2 - The Collector Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 3 - The Sub Divisional Officer Revenue Cum Land Acquisition Officer Arang / Abhanpur Headquarter Raipur Chhattisgarh 4 - The Naya Raipur Development Authority Through The Chief Executive Officer Naya Raipur Development Authority New Rajendra Nagar Opposite Vijeta Complex R.D.A. Bauilding Govind Sarang Raipur District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh --- Respondent(s) WPC No. 1966 of 2014 1 - Suresh Poddar S/o Late Chhedi Lal Poddar Aged About 55 Years R/o Manjusha 15/480, Rajbhawan Road, P.S. Civil Lines, Raipur., Chhattisgarh ---Petitioner(s) Versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh, Through The Secretary, Department Of Revenue, Thana Naya Raipur, Secretariat Mahanadi Bhawan, Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - The Collector Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 6 3 - The Sub Divisional Officer Revenue Cum Land Acquisition Officer Arang / Abhanpur Headquarter Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 4 - The Naya Raipur Development Authority Through The Chief Executive Officer Naya Raipur Development Authority New Rajendra Nagar Opposite Vijeta Complex R.D.A. Bauilding Govind Sarang Raipur Distt. Raipur C.G., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh --- Respondent(s) WPC No. 1969 of 2014 1 - Smt. Usha Devi Singhania W/o Shri Lalit Kumar Si9hnghania Aged About 60 Years R/o Manjusha 15/480, Rajbhawan Road, Civil Lines, Ps Civil Lines, Dist Raipur, Chhattisgarh ---Petitioner(s) Versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Revenue Department, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Capital Complex, Naya Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - The Collector Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 3 - Sub Divisional Officer, Revenue-Cum-Land Acquisition Officer, Arang/abhanpur, Headquarter Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 4 - Naya Raipour Development Authority Through The Chief Executive Officer, Naya Raipur Development Authority, New Rajendra Nagar, Opposite Vijeta Complex, R.D.A. Bauilding Govind Sarang Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh --- Respondent(s) (Cause title taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Ashish Surana Advocate For Respondent(s)/State : Mr. Ajit Singh, Govt. Advocate For Respondent/NRDA : Mr. Anuroop Panda, Advocate 7 WPC No. 1944 of 2017 1 - Aayushi Jain D/o Late Santosh Jain, Aged About 24 Years R/o Jain Bada, Baijnath Para, Raipur District Raipur Chhattisgarh., Chhattisgarh 2 - Shreyansh Jain, S/o Late Santosh Jain, Aged About 23 Years R/o Jain Bada, Baijnath Para, Raipur District Raipur Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 3 - Shraddha Jain, D/o Late Santosh Jain, Aged About 22 Years R/o Jain Bada, Baijnath Para, Raipur District Raipur Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 4 - Smt. Reena Jain, Aged About 48 Years R/o Jain Bada, Baijnath Para, Raipur District Raipur Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh ---Petitioner(s) Versus 1 - Union Of India S/o Through Secretary, Ministry Of Rural Development, New Delhi, India., Delhi 2 - State Of Chhattisgarh, Through Secretary, Department Of Revenue, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Capital Complex, Naya Raipur District Raipur Chhattisgarh, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 3 - The Collector, Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 4 - Sub Divisional Officer, Revenue-Cum- Land Acquisition Officer, Arang / Abhanpur, Headquter Raipur Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 5 - Naya Raipur Development Authority, Through The Chief Executive Officer, Naya Raipur Development Authority, New Rajendra Nagar, Opposite Vijeta Complex, R. D. A. Buliding Govind Sarang , Raipur District Raipur Chhattisgarh. , District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh --- Respondent(s) WPC No. 2517 of 2017 1 - Smt. Vinita Agrawal W/o Shri Vikas Agrawal, Aged About 44 Years R/o Radiant Public School, Nimora, Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh., Chhattisgarh 8 2 - Vikas Agrawal S/o Shri S. N. Agrawal, Aged About 47 Years R/o Radiant Public School, Nimora, Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh ---Petitioner(s) Versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh S/o Through Secretary, Department Of Revenue, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Capital Complex, Naya Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh., Chhattisgarh 2 - The Collector, Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 3 - Sub Divisional Officer, Revenue-Cum- Land Acquisition Officer, Arang/ Abhanpur, Headquarter/ District Raipur, Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 4 - Naya Raipur Development Authority, Through The Chief Executive Officer, Naya Raipur Development Authority, Prayavas Bhawan, North Block, Sector 19, Naya Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh --- Respondent(s) WPC No. 2520 of 2017 1 - Vikas Agrawal S/o Shri S. N. Agrawal, Aged About 47 Years R/o Radiant Public School, Nimora, Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh., Chhattisgarh ---Petitioner(s) Versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh S/o Through Secretary, Department Of Revenue, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Capital Complex, Naya Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh., Chhattisgarh 2 - The Collector, Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 3 - Sub Divisional Officer, Revenue Cum Land Acquisition Officer, Arang / Abhanpur, Headquarter / District Raipur, Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 9 4 - Naya Raipur Development Authority, Through The Chief Executive Officer, Naya Raipur Development Authority, Prayavas Bhawan, North Block, Sector 19, Naya Raipur District Raipur, Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh --- Respondent(s (Cause title taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Sushobhit Singh, Advocate For Respondent(s)/State : Mr. Ajit Singh, Govt. Advocate Hon’ble Shri Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, J. CAV Order 1. The issues involved in all these writ petitions are the same and common and arise out of the land of the same family. Therefore, they are being heard and decided together. All these writ petitions are being divided into groups as per the respective claims and pleadings in the writ petitions. W.P.C No. 6426/2011 2. The petitioner, in the present writ petition, prayed for the following reliefs:- “1. That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to call for the entire records leading to issuance of the impugned notification dated 09-08-2011 (Annexure P-1) published in the official gazette on 26-08-2011 for its kind perusal. 2. That, the Hon’ble court may kindly be pleased to issue appropriate writ/writs quashing the notification 10 dt. 09-08-11 published in the official gazette on 26-08-11 (Annexure P-1) issued by respondent no. 1 and the entire land acquisition proceedings bearing no. 20/A/82 year 2010-11 with respect to the petitioner land in village Chhatouna, Patwari halka No. 74/13, Tehsil Arang, District Raipur (C.G.) and be pleased to hold the acquisition of the petitioner land for development of New Capital as illegal, arbitrary, colourable exercise of power the respondent authorities thus is void and inoperative in law. 3. Any other relief, including the cost of this petition, as it appears to be fit and appropriate to this Hon’ble Court be granted.” 3. The brief facts of the case of W.P.C No. 6426/2011 are that the petitioner was the title and possession holder of the land of Kh. No. 192, 195, 198, 201, total area 0.860 hectares, situated at village Chhatouna, P.H. No. 73/14, Tahsil Arang, District Raipur (Chhattisgarh). She had purchased the said land on 30-01-2001, 03-07-2001 and 12-06-2011, respectively, through registered sale deeds from its respective owners. For the development of New Raipur under the Naya Raipur Development Project, the state government decided to acquire the land of Village Chhatouna, including the land of the petitioner and a notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter called as “Act of 1894”) was issued on 09-08-2011 and published in “Haribhoomi” daily newspaper on 13-08-2011. In the notification issued on 09-08-2011 under Section 4(1) of the Act of 1894, it has been mentioned that provisions of 11 Section 5-A of the Act of 1894 are not applicable in the case because Section 17(1) of the Act of 1894 has been applied for the proposed acquisition of land. Section 17(1) and 17(2) of the Act of 1894 confer extraordinary powers upon the state to acquire property without complying with the provisions of Section 5-A of the Act of 1894. The Land Acquisition Case No. 20/A/82/2010-11 was registered for the acquisition of the land of the petitioner, and Section 5-A of the Act of 1894 has to be complied with even if Section 17(1) of the Act of 1894 is applied. In the notification dated 09-08-2011 issued under Section 4(1) of the Act of 1894, it is stated that the petitioner’s land is needed for the construction of a new capital city under the Naya Raipur project and there was no emergent situation. The state government has not taken any decision to dispense with the provisions of Section 5-A of the Act of 1894, and only on the instance of respondent no. 5 the said notification under Section 17(4) of the Act of 1894 was issued. The acquisition was only to deprive the petitioner of her right to file objection and to hold possession till she gets compensation under Section 5-A of the Act of 1894. 4. It is also the pleading in the writ petition that the proposal for the acquisition of the land of the petitioner was made on 14-03-2011 by respondent no. 5, whereas the said notification under Section 4(1) and 17(1) of the Act of 1894 was issued on 09-08-2011 which has been published in the official gazette on 26-08-2011 and till date, the declaration under Section 6 of the Act of 1894 has not been issued by the respondents. The provisions of the Act of 1894 have to be strictly 12 construed as the same deprived a person of his/her property, and thus, the entire land acquisition proceeding is unsustainable for want of inquiry under Section 5-A of the Act of 1894 and the same is liable to be quashed. 5. In the rejoinder filed by the petitioner on 10-02-2012, it is pleaded that the urgency of the state government for the acquisition of the land is already over, and the time limit fixed for the development of the area i.e. the year 2011 has already expired, which itself speaks that there is no urgency in the acquisition of the land of the petitioner. She also denied that the land of the petitioner is required for the development of a logistic hub, transport hub and integrity freight complex as there is mention about all in the notification dated 09-08-2011. It is also submitted that there can be no composite notification under Section 4(1), 17(1) and 17(4) of the Act of 1894, and all the provisions have to be satisfied independently. Depriving the petitioner from raising an objection under Section 5-A of the Act of 1894 without following the due process of law cannot be termed as a technical fault in the publication of the notification. The authorities are bound to issue separate notifications under Section 17(4) of the Act of 1894 before dispensing the enquiry under Section 5-A of the Act of 1894. In another rejoinder filed by the petitioner on 30-07-2015, it is submitted that the state government has published the notice under Section 6 of the Act of 1894 during the pendency of the present writ petition. From the note sheet, it is apparent that on 13-01-2012, respondent no. 2 was directed to seek information from respondent no. 5 about 13 proceeding under Section 6 of the Act of 1894. The procedure adopted by the authorities is not permissible under the law as the objections were to be filed within 30 days from the date of publication of the notification under Section 4 of the Act of 1894. When the respondents proceeded under Sections 4 and 17(1) of the Act of 1894, they could not proceed with Section 5-A of the Act of 1894 for considering the objections. Further, the objections were considered and rejected contrary to the provisions of the law. 6. Respondents nos. 1 to 4, in their reply, submitted that for the establishment of New Raipur Capital city, the Naya Raipur Development Authority was constituted, and the lands of different persons were required from village Chhatouna, Tahsil Arang, District Raipur. The land of the petitioner is situated in the village Chhatouna. On 14-03-2011, the Chief Executive Officer of Naya Raipur Development Authority (in short “NRDA”) to the Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue), Arang (in short “SDO, Arang”) to initiate the land acquisition proceeding. The Land Acquisition Case No. 20/A-82/ 2010-11 was registered by the SDO, Arang, and on 09-08-2011, the notification under Section 4(1) and 17(1) of the Act of 1894 was issued, and the same was published in the daily newspaper on 13-08-2011 and in the official gazette on 26-08-2011. On 14-08-2012, the notification under Section 6 of the Act of 1894 is also published in the daily newspaper. The farmers agreed to give their land by mutual consent to the NRDA, and with respect to 11 farmers, the award has been passed, and the land acquisition proceeding with respect to 25 14 farmers is pending. The petitioner had raised an objection under Section 5-A of the Act of 1894, in which the reply from NRDA was called, and after considering the objection and reply, the objection raised by the petitioner is rejected by the competent authority on 25-07-2011. As per the notification dated 15-02-1999 and 13-12-2009 issued by the state government, the Commissioner (Revenue) of the Division is ex-officio Revenue Secretary for exercising the powers of Section 5-A of the Act of 1894; all objections were placed before the Commissioner on 25-07-2011 and thereafter, vide letter dated 04-08-2012 it was communicated that all the objections are rejected. Thereafter, after approval of the District Collector, the notification under Section 6 of the Act of 1894 was published. The objections under Section 5-A of the Act of 1894 were duly considered, and the order was passed. Although in the earlier notification, it was mentioned that Section 5-A is not applied in the matter, the opportunity was provided to the farmers and their objections were considered. The land acquisition case was registered on 17-03-2011, there is an explanation for the delay of about 2 ½ months due to financial sanction of the compensation amount of the land under the guideline prepared for its market rate. Thereafter, the matter was travelled up to the Commissioner, and after their approval, the notification was published on 26-08-2011. Since the inquiry under Section 5-A of the Act of 1894 has duly been complied with, there is no violation of any provisions of the Act of 1894. 15 7. Respondent no. 5 NRDA has also filed their reply and submitted that the notification under Section 4(1) and 17(1) of the Act of 1894 had been issued for the acquisition of land, including the land of the petitioner of village Chhatouna, which was coming under the development phase of Naya Raipur Development Plan 2031 (Master Plan) and there was genuine urgency for the acquisition of land. In the said village, a huge chunk of land was acquired either by purchase through mutual consent or transferred by the state government. Now, some small portion of the land remains for which the farmers are raising objections and the entire development plan is paralysed and hampered. Therefore, without expeditious acquisition of land of these small pieces of land, the project would not be completed. The Indian Army has also demanded land there for their cantonment area near the logistic hub. When the matter was forwarded to the Commissioner, Raipur Division, he, after due satisfaction, came to the conclusion of the requirement of invocation of Section 17 of the Act of 1894 and subsequently, the order was passed by him. There can be a composite notification under Section 4(1), 17(1) and 17(4) of the Act of 1894, and it was specified in the notification that the provisions of Section 5-A of the Act of 1894 do not apply in the matter. The correctness of the opinion cannot be challenged unless it is found to be a mala fide exercise of the powers of the authorities however, in the present case, the petitioner has failed to demonstrate the same. The proceeding of Land Acquisition Case No. 20/A-82/2010-11 cannot be termed as an illegal proceeding only because of some technical fault in the notification. The powers under Section 17 of the Act of 1894 were 16 exercised by the state government after considering the need for the land in question urgently. He also explained the time taken for publication of the notification dated 26-08-2011. The petitioner is taking hypertechnical grounds in her petition and has failed to demonstrate any mala fide or arbitrary exercise of its powers on the part of respondent no. 5. W.P.C. No. 6427/2011 8. In this writ petition, the relief claimed by the petitioner is that:- “1. That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to call for the entire records leading to issuance of the impugned notification dated 09-08-2011 (Annexure P-1) published in the official gazette on 26-08-2011 for its kind perusal. 2. That, the Hon’ble court may kindly be pleased to issue appropriate writ/writs quashing the notification dt. 09-08-11 published in the official gazette on 26-08-11 (Annexure P-1) issued by respondent no. 1 and the entire land acquisition proceedings bearing no. 20/A/82 year 2010-11 with respect to the petitioner land in village Chhatouna, Tehsil Arang, District Raipur (C.G.) and be pleased to hold the acquisition of the petitioner land for development of New Capital as illegal, arbitrary, colourable exercise of power the respondent authorities thus is void and inoperative in law. 17 3. Any other relief, including the cost of this petition, as it appears to be fit and appropriate to this Hon’ble Court be granted.” 9. Except for the description of the land of the petitioner in W.P.C. No. 6427/2011, all other pleadings and grounds are the same as it has been made in W.P.C. No. 6426/2011. In the present writ petition (W.P.C. No. 6427/2011), the claim of the petitioner is that the petitioner is a trust established under a Will executed by Late Jeevanlal Singhania on 02-03-1997. The present petition has been filed by the trust through its trustee Lalit Kumar Singhania, who is duly authorized by the trust. The claim of the petitioner is that the petitioner is the title and possession holder of the land bearing Kh. No. 197, 199, 200, 202, 204, 205, admeasuring 0.42 hect., 0.29 Hect., 0.55 Hect., 0.32 Hect., 0.19 Hect., 0.40 Hect. Respectively, situated at village Chhatouna, P.H. No. 73/14, Tehsil Arang, District Raipur (C.G.). on 09-08-2011, the respondent authorities have issued a notification under Section 4(1) and 17(1) of the Act of 1894 for acquisition of the land of the petitioner for construction of New Capital city under the Naya Raipur project. The said notification was published on 13-08-2011 in the daily newspaper “Haribhoomi”, in which it was stated that the provisions of Section 5-A of the Act of 1894 do not apply in the case as Section 17(1) of the Act of 1894 applied. It is the case of the petitioner that the project has been running for the past six years, and there was no urgency in the matter as provided under Section 17 of the Act of 1894. There is no notification under Section 17(4) of the Act of 1894 was issued. 18 10. The rest of the pleadings and grounds of the writ petition are the same as has been made in the W.P.C. No. 6426/2011. Likewise, the reply filed by the State as well as the respondent No. 5, NRDA, are also the same as has been made in the said W.P.C. 6426/2011 and reiteration of the reply filed by the respondents would amount to repetition of the facts of the case. W.P.C. No. 6428/2011 11. In this writ petition, the relief claimed by the petitioner is that:- “1. That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to call for the entire records leading to issuance of the impugned notification dated 09-08-2011 (Annexure P- 1) published in the official gazette on 26-08-2011 for its kind perusal. 2. That, the Hon’ble court may kindly be pleased to issue appropriate writ/writs quashing the notification dt. 09-08-11 published in the official gazette on 26-08-11 (Annexure P-1) issued by respondent no. 1 and the entire land acquisition proceedings bearing no. 20/A/82 year 2010-11 with respect to the petitioner land in village Chhatouna, Tehsil Arang, District Raipur (C.G.) and be pleased to hold the acquisition of the petitioner land for development of New Capital as illegal, arbitrary, colourable exercise of power the respondent authorities thus is void and inoperative in law. 19 3. Any other relief, including the cost of this petition, as it appears to be fit and appropriate to this Hon’ble Court be granted.” 12. Except for the description of the land of the petitioner in W.P.C. No. 6426/2011, all other pleadings and grounds are the same as it has been made in W.P.C. No. 6426/2011. In the present writ petition (W.P.C. No. 6428/2011), the claim of the petitioner is that the petitioner was the title and possession holder of the land of Kh. No. 203, total area 1.55 hectares, situated at village Chhatouna, P.H. No. 73/14, Tahsil Arang, District Raipur (Chhattisgarh). For the development of New Raipur under the Naya Raipur Development Project, the state government decided to acquire the land of Village Chhatouna, including the 1.37 Hectares of the land of the petitioner from Kh. No. 203, and a notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter called as “Act of 1894”) was issued on 09-08-2011 and published in “Haribhoomi” daily newspaper on 13-08-2011. In the notification issued on 09-08-2011 under Section 4(1) of the Act of 1894, it has been mentioned that provisions of Section 5-A of the Act of 1894 are not applicable in the case because Section 17(1) of the Act of 1894 has been applied for the proposed acquisition of land. Section 17(1) and 17(2) of the Act of 1894 confer extraordinary powers upon the state to acquire property without complying with the provisions of Section 5-A of the Act of 1894. The Land Acquisition Case No. 20/A/82/2010-11 was registered for the acquisition of the land of the petitioner, and Section 5-A of the Act of 1894 has to be complied with even if Section 17(1) of the Act of 1894 is applied. In the 20 notification dated 09-08-2011 issued under Section 4(1) of the Act of 1894, it is stated that the petitioner’s land is needed for the construction of a new capital city under the Naya Raipur project and there was no emergent situation. The state government has not taken any decision to dispense with the provisions of Section 5-A of the Act of 1894, and only on the instance of respondent no. 5 the said notification under Section 17(4) of the Act of 1894 was issued. The acquisition was only to deprive the petitioner of her right to file objection and to hold possession till she gets compensation under Section 5-A of the Act of 1894. 13. It is also the pleading in the writ petition that the proposal for the acquisition of the land of the petitioner was made on 14-03-2011 by respondent no. 5, whereas the said notification under Section 4(1) and 17(1) of the Act of 1894 was issued on 09-08-2011 which has been published in the official gazette on 26-08-2011 and till date, the declaration under Section 6 of the Act of 1894 has not been issued by the respondents. The provisions of the Act of 1894 have to be strictly construed as the same deprived a person of his/her property, and thus, the entire land acquisition proceeding is unsustainable for want of inquiry under Section 5-A of the Act of 1894 and the same is liable to be quashed. 14. In the rejoinder filed by the petitioner on 10-02-2012, it is pleaded that the urgency of the state government for the acquisition of the land is already over, and the time limit fixed for the development of the area 21 i.e. the year 2011 has already expired, which itself speaks that there is no urgency in the acquisition of the land of the petitioner. She also denied that the land of the petitioner is required for the development of a logistic hub, transport hub and integrity freight complex as there is mention about all in the notification dated 09-08-2011. It is also submitted that there can be no composite notification under Section 4(1), 17(1) and 17(4) of the Act of 1894, and all the provisions have to be satisfied independently. Depriving the petitioner from raising an objection under Section 5-A of the Act of 1894 without following the due process of law cannot be termed as a technical fault in the publication of the notification. The authorities are bound to issue separate notifications under Section 17(4) of the Act of 1894 before dispensing the enquiry under Section 5-A of the Act of 1894. In another rejoinder filed by the petitioner on 30-07-2015, it is submitted that the state government has published the notice under Section 6 of the Act of 1894 during the pendency of the present writ petition. From the note sheet, it is apparent that on 13-01-2012, respondent no. 2 was directed to seek information from respondent no. 5 about proceeding under Section 6 of the Act of 1894. The procedure adopted by the authorities is not permissible under the law as the objections were to be filed within 30 days from the date of publication of the notification under Section 4 of the Act of 1894. When the respondents proceeded under Sections 4 and 17(1) of the Act of 1894, they could not proceed with Section 5-A of the Act of 1894 for considering the objections. Further, the objections were considered and rejected contrary to the provisions of the law. 22 15. The rest of the pleadings and grounds of the writ petition are the same as has been made in the W.P.C. No. 6426/2011. Likewise, the reply filed by the State as well as the respondent No. 5, NRDA, are also the same as has been made in the said W.P.C. 6426/2011 and reiteration of the reply filed by the respondents would amount to repetition of the facts of the case. W.P.C. No. 1648/2013 16. In this writ petition, the petitioner has claimed the following reliefs:- “1. That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to call for the entire records leading to the issuance of the impugned declaration/notification (Annexure P/1) published in the Official Gazette on 24-08-2012, order dated 25-07-2012 (Annexure P-4) and 03-08-2012 (Annexure P-3) for its kind perusal. 2. That, the Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue appropriate writ/writs quashing the notification dated 14-08-2012 published in official gazette on 24- 08-2012 (Annexure P/1) and in newspaper on 23-08- 2012 (Annexure P/2) issued by the respondent No. 1 for acquisition of the petitioner’s land in village Chhatouna, Patwari Halka No. 73/14, Tehsil Arang, District Raipur (C.G.). 3. That, the Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue appropriate writ/writs quashing the impugned order dated 25-07-2012 (Annexure P/4) and 03-08-2012 (Annexure P/3) rejecting petitioner objection, passed 23 in Case No. 20-A/82 Year 2010-11, holding that, the same being passed contrary to the provisions of Section 5-A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. 4. Any other relief, including the cost of the petition, as it appears to be fit and appropriate to this Honourable Court be granted.” 17. The brief facts of the case of W.P.C No. 1648/2013 are that the petitioner was the title and possession holder of the land of Kh. No. 192, 195, 198, 201, total area 0.860 hectares, situated at village Chhatouna, P.H. No. 73/14, Tahsil Arang, District Raipur (Chhattisgarh). She had purchased the said land on 30-01-2001, 03-07-2001 and 12-06-2011, respectively, through registered sale deeds from its respective owners. For the development of New Raipur under the Naya Raipur Development Project, the state government decided to acquire the land of Village Chhatouna, including the land of the petitioner and a notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter called as “Act of 1894”) was published in “Haribhoomi” daily newspaper on 23-02-2012. In the notification published on 23-02-2012 under Section 4(1) of the Act of 1894, it has been mentioned that provisions of Section 5-A of the Act of 1894 are not applicable in the case because Section 17(1) of the Act of 1894 has been applied for the proposed acquisition of land. No notifocation under Section 17(4) of the Act of 1894 was issued by the respondents before issuing the notification under Section 4(1) and 17(1) of the Act of 1894. The notification issued under Section 4(1) 24 and 17(1) of the Act of 1894 has already been challenged by the petitioner in W.P.C. No. 6426/2011. Though the provisions of Section 5-A of the Act of 1894 is not applicable, yet he has filed his objection under Section 5-A of the Act of 1894 within the prescribed time limit against the proposed acquisition of his land. The Respondent No. 4 issued notice to the petitioner on 26-06-2012 for hearing on objection. On 25-07-2012 and 03-08-2012, the Respondent Authorities have dismissed the objection of the petitioner under Section 5-A of the Act of 1894. It is the case of the petitioner that the Respondent No. 4 was not the competent authority to hear and decide the objection under Section 5-A of the Act of 1894, yet he has decided the objection and forwarded the matter for approval of the State Government. The approval was given by the Respondent No. 2 mechanically without considering the objections. The Respondent No. 2 signed the declaration under Section 6 of the Act of 1894 on 13-08-2012 for publication in the official gazette but on the same time it has also been mentioned in the order sheet that the notification under Section 6 of the Act of 1894 be published after receiving approval of the Commissioner, rejecting applications filed under Section 5-A of the Act of 1894. Section 5-A(2) specially empowered the Collector to hear the objections against the proposed acquisition of land and to make a report to the State Government along with his recommendation on the objection. The decision taken by the State Government shall be final. It is also the case of the petitioner that the declaration made under Section 6 of the Act of 1894 is illegal and void as the same is issued without following the procedure under Section 5-A of the Act of 1894. 25 18. In the rejoinder filed by the petitioner on 23-04-2023, it is pleaded that the respondents have never informed about rejection of the objection of the petitioner. The objection of the petitioner filed under Section 5-A of the Act of 1894 was decided by the Land Acquisition Officer without jurisdiction and the Collector has the jurisdiction to decide the same. The declaration made under Section 6 of the Act of 1894 is illegal as the same is issued without following the procedure of Section 5-A of the Act of 1894. The objection of the petitioner has not been decided in an objective manner, and the Respondent No. 4 was not competent to decide the same. 19. Respondent nos. 1 to 4/State has not filed its reply in the present writ petition. 20. Respondent no. 5 NRDA has filed their reply and submitted that the present petition has been filed by the petitioner on 22-10-2013 questioning the notification dated 14-08-2012 issued by the Land Acquisition Officer under Section 6 of the Act of 1894, and order dated 03-08-2012 and 25-07-2012 whereby her objection under Section 5-A of the Act of 1894 was rejected which was well within the knowledge of the petitioner. The objections were rejected, and notification under Section 6 of the Act of 1894 was published in the year 2012, therefore, the petition suffers from delay and laches. The objection raised by the petitioner under Section 5-A of the Act of 1894 has been considered in accordance with law and considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case, made recommendation on 25-07-2012 to 26 the State Government through the Commissioner, who is the ex-officio Revenue Secretary, as per the notification issued on 03-12-2009 and 15-02-1999 and by exercising the powers under Section 5-A of the Act of 1894, the Commissioner has recommended on 03-08-2012. Thereafter, the notification under Section 6 of the Act of 1894 was published and approved by the Collector on 14-08-2012. The objection raised by the petitioner has been duly considered by the authorities concerned. It is also replied in the present case that a proper opportunity of hearing was also provided to the petitioner before rejecting her objection. After approval by the Commissioner on 03-08-2012, the notification under Section 6 of the Act of 1894 was published. W.P.C. No. 1649/2013 21. In this writ petition, the petitioner has claimed the following reliefs:- 1. That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to call for the entire records leading to the issuance of the impugned declaration/notification (Annexure P/1) published in the Official Gazette on 24-08-2012, order dated 25-07-2012 (Annexure P-4) and 03-08-2012 (Annexure P-3) for its kind perusal. 2. That, the Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue appropriate writ/writs quashing the notification dated 14-08-2012 published in official gazette on 24- 08-2012 (Annexure P/1) and in newspaper on 23-08- 2012 (Annexure P/2) issued by the respondent No. 1 27 for acquisition of the petitioner’s land in village Chhatouna, Patwari Halka No. 73/14, Tehsil Arang, District Raipur (C.G.). 3. That, the Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue appropriate writ/writs quashing the impugned order dated 25-07-2012 (Annexure P/4) and 03-08-2012 (Annexure P/3) rejecting petitioner objection, passed in Case No. 20-A/82 Year 2010-11, holding that, the same being passed contrary to the provisions of Section 5-A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. 4. Any other relief, including the cost of the petition, as it appears to be fit and appropriate to this Honourable Court be granted.” 22. The brief facts of the case of W.P.C No. 1648/2013 are that the petitioner was the title and possession holder of the land of Kh. No. 203, total area 1.55 hectares, situated at village Chhatouna, P.H. No. 73/14, Tahsil Arang, District Raipur (Chhattisgarh). For the development of New Raipur under the Naya Raipur Development Project, the state government decided to acquire the land of Village Chhatouna, including the 1.37 hectare land of the petitioner and a notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter called as “Act of 1894”) was published in “Haribhoomi” daily newspaper on 23-02-2012. In the notification published on 23-02-2012 under Section 4(1) of the Act of 1894, it has been mentioned that provisions of Section 5-A of the Act of 1894 are not applicable in the case because Section 17(1) of the Act of 1894 has 28 been applied for the proposed acquisition of land. No notification under Section 17(4) of the Act of 1894 was issued by the respondents before issuing the notification under Section 4(1) and 17(1) of the Act of 1894. The notification issued under Section 4(1) and 17(1) of the Act of 1894 has already been challenged by the petitioner in W.P.C. No. 6428/2011. Though the provisions of Section 5-A of the Act of 1894 are not applicable, he has filed his objection under Section 5-A of the Act of 1894 within the prescribed time limit against the proposed acquisition of his land. The Respondent No. 4 issued notice to the petitioner on 26-06-2012 for a hearing on the objection. On 25-07-2012 and 03-08-2012, the Respondent Authorities dismissed the objection of the petitioner under Section 5-A of the Act of 1894. It is the case of the petitioner that the Respondent No. 4 was not the competent authority to hear and decide the objection under Section 5-A of the Act of 1894, yet he has decided the objection and forwarded the matter for approval of the State Government. The approval was given by the Respondent No. 2 mechanically without considering the objections. The Respondent No. 2 signed the declaration under Section 6 of the Act of 1894 on 13-08-2012 for publication in the official gazette but on the same time it has also been mentioned in the order sheet that the notification under Section 6 of the Act of 1894 be published after receiving approval of the Commissioner, rejecting applications filed under Section 5-A of the Act of 1894. Section 5-A(2) specially empowered the Collector to hear the objections against the proposed acquisition of land and to make a report to the State Government along with his recommendation on the objection. The 29 decision taken by the State Government shall be final. It is also the case of the petitioner that the declaration made under Section 6 of the Act of 1894 is illegal and void as the same is issued without following the procedure under Section 5-A of the Act of 1894. 23. In the rejoinder filed by the petitioner on 23-04-2023, it is pleaded that the respondents have never informed about the rejection of the objection of the petitioner. The objection of the petitioner filed under Section 5-A of the Act of 1894 was decided by the Land Acquisition Officer without jurisdiction, and the Collector has the jurisdiction to decide the same. The declaration made under Section 6 of the Act of 1894 is illegal as the same was issued without following the procedure of Section 5-A of the Act of 1894. The objection of the petitioner has not been decided objectively, and the Respondent No. 4 was not competent to decide the same. 24. Respondent nos. 1 to 4/State has not filed its reply in the present writ petition. 25. Respondent no. 5 NRDA has filed their reply and submitted that the present petition has been filed by the petitioner on 22-10-2013 questioning the notification dated 14-08-2012 issued by the Land Acquisition Officer under Section 6 of the Act of 1894, and order dated 03-08-2012 and 25-07-2012 whereby her objection under Section 5-A of the Act of 1894 was rejected which was well within the knowledge of the petitioner. The objections were rejected, and notification under Section 6 of the Act of 1894 was published in the year 2012; therefore, 30 the petition suffers from delay and laches. The objection raised by the petitioner under Section 5-A of the Act of 1894 has been considered in accordance with law and considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case, made recommendation on 25-07-2012 to the State Government through the Commissioner, who is the ex-officio Revenue Secretary, as per the notification issued on 03-12-2009 and 15-02-1999 and by exercising the powers under Section 5-A of the Act of 1894, the Commissioner has recommended on 03-08-2012. Thereafter, the notification under Section 6 of the Act of 1894 was published and approved by the Collector on 14-08-2012. The objection raised by the petitioner has been duly considered by the authorities concerned. It is also replied in the present case that a proper opportunity of hearing was also provided to the petitioner before rejecting her objection. After approval by the Commissioner on 03-08-2012, the notification under Section 6 of the Act of 1894 was published. W.P.C. No. 1651/2013 26. In this writ petition, the petitioner claimed the following reliefs:- 1. That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to call for the entire records leading to the issuance of the impugned declaration/notification (Annexure P/1) published in the Official Gazette on 24-08-2012, order dated 25-07-2012 (Annexure P-4) and 03-08-2012 (Annexure P-3) for its kind perusal. 31 2. That, the Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue appropriate writ/writs quashing the notification dated 14-08-2012 published in official gazette on 24- 08-2012 (Annexure P/1) and in newspaper on 23-08- 2012 (Annexure P/2) issued by the respondent No. 1 for acquisition of the petitioner’s land in village Chhatouna, Patwari Halka No. 73/14, Tehsil Arang, District Raipur (C.G.). 3. That, the Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue appropriate writ/writs quashing the impugned order dated 25-07-2012 (Annexure P/4) and 03-08-2012 (Annexure P/3) rejecting petitioner objection, passed in Case No. 20-A/82 Year 2010-11, holding that, the same being passed contrary to the provisions of Section 5-A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. 4.Any other relief, including the cost of the petition, as it appears to be fit and appropriate to this Honourable Court be granted.” 27. The brief facts of the case of W.P.C No. 1651/2013 are that the petitioner No. 1 is a trust established under a Will executed by Late Jeevan Lal Singhania on 02-03-1997, and was the title and possession holder of the land of Kh. No. 197, 199, 200, 202, 204 and 205, area 0.42 hect., 0.29 hect., 0.55 hect., 0.32 hect., 0.19 hect. And 0.40 hect., respectively, situated at village Chhatouna, P.H. No. 73/14, Tahsil Arang, District Raipur (Chhattisgarh). For the development of New Raipur under the Naya Raipur Development Project, the state government decided to acquire the land of Village Chhatouna, 32 including the land of the petitioner and a notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter called as “Act of 1894”) was published in “Haribhoomi” daily newspaper on 23-02-2012. In the notification issued on 14-08-2012 under Section 4(1) and 17(1) of the Act of 1894, and published on 23-02-2012. In the notification published on 23-02-2012 under Section 4(1) of the Act of 1894, it has been mentioned that provisions of Section 5-A of the Act of 1894 are not applicable in the case because Section 17(1) of the Act of 1894 has been applied for the proposed acquisition of land. No notification under Section 17(4) of the Act of 1894 was issued by the respondents before issuing the notification under Section 4(1) and 17(1) of the Act of 1894. The notification issued under Section 4(1) and 17(1) of the Act of 1894 has already been challenged by the petitioner in W.P.C. No. 6427/2011. Though the provisions of Section 5-A of the Act of 1894 are not applicable, he has filed his objection under Section 5-A of the Act of 1894 within the prescribed time limit against the proposed acquisition of his land. The Respondent No. 4 issued notice to the petitioner on 26-06-2012 for a hearing on the objection. On 25-07-2012 and 03-08-2012, the Respondent Authorities dismissed the objection of the petitioner under Section 5-A of the Act of 1894. It is the case of the petitioner that the Respondent No. 4 was not the competent authority to hear and decide the objection under Section 5-A of the Act of 1894, yet he has decided the objection and forwarded the matter for approval of the State Government. The approval was given by the Respondent No. 2 mechanically without considering the objections. The Respondent No. 2 signed the declaration under 33 Section 6 of the Act of 1894 on 13-08-2012 for publication in the official gazette but on the same time it has also been mentioned in the order sheet that the notification under Section 6 of the Act of 1894 be published after receiving approval of the Commissioner, rejecting applications filed under Section 5-A of the Act of 1894. Section 5-A(2) specially empowered the Collector to hear the objections against the proposed acquisition of land and to make a report to the State Government along with his recommendation on the objection. The decision taken by the State Government shall be final. It is also the case of the petitioner that the declaration made under Section 6 of the Act of 1894 is illegal and void as the same is issued without following the procedure under Section 5-A of the Act of 1894. 28. In the rejoinder filed by the petitioner on 23-04-2023, it is pleaded that the respondents have never informed about the rejection of the objection of the petitioner. The objection of the petitioner filed under Section 5-A of the Act of 1894 was decided by the Land Acquisition Officer without jurisdiction, and the Collector has the jurisdiction to decide the same. The declaration made under Section 6 of the Act of 1894 is illegal as the same was issued without following the procedure of Section 5-A of the Act of 1894. The objection of the petitioner has not been decided objectively, and the Respondent No. 4 was not competent to decide the same. 29. Respondent nos. 1 to 4/State has filed its return and submits that the land acquisition proceeding was initiated under the Naya Raipur 34 Development Plan, 2031, and the land was required for public purposes. The notification under Section 4(1) and 17(1) of the Act of 1894 was issued in accordance with law, and the objection of the petitioner under Section 5-A of the Act of 1894 has been duly considered by the authorities by giving them the opportunity of hearing and following the principles of natural justice. The authorities have recommended the same to the Commissioner for its approval, and it was approved on 03-08-2012, and only thereafter, the notification under Section 6 of the Act of 1894 was published. 30. Respondent no. 5 NRDA has also filed their return and submitted that the present petition has been filed by the petitioner on 22-10-2013 questioning the notification dated 14-08-2012 issued by the Land Acquisition Officer under Section 6 of the Act of 1894, and order dated 03-08-2012 and 25-07-2012 whereby her objection under Section 5-A of the Act of 1894 was rejected which was well within the knowledge of the petitioner. The objections were rejected, and notification under Section 6 of the Act of 1894 was published in the year 2012; therefore, the petition suffers from delay and laches. The objection raised by the petitioner under Section 5-A of the Act of 1894 has been considered in accordance with law and considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case, made recommendation on 25-07-2012 to the State Government through the Commissioner, who is the ex-officio Revenue Secretary, as per the notification issued on 03-12-2009 and 15-02-1999 and by exercising the powers under Section 5-A of the Act of 1894, the Commissioner has recommended on 03-08-2012. 35 Thereafter, the notification under Section 6 of the Act of 1894 was published and approved by the Collector on 14-08-2012. The objection raised by the petitioner has been duly considered by the authorities concerned. It is also replied in the present case that a proper opportunity of hearing was also provided to the petitioner before rejecting her objection. After approval by the Commissioner on 03-08-2012, the notification under Section 6 of the Act of 1894 was published. W.P.C. No. 1965/2014 31. The present writ petition filed by the petitioner claims the following reliefs:- “1. That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to call for the entire records leading to passing of the impugned award dated 03-07-2014 (Annexure P-1) for its kind perusal. 2. That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue appropriate writ/writs quashing the impugned award dated 03-07-2014 (Annexure P-1) passed by respondent No. 3 for acquisition of the petitioner’s land in village Chhatouna, Patwari Halka No. 73/14, Tehsil Arang, District Raipur (C.G.) 3. Any other relief(s), including the cost of this petition, as it appears to be fit and appropriate to this Honourable Court be granted.” 36 32. At the cost of repetition, the brief facts of the case of W.P.C No. 1965/2014 are that the petitioner No. 1 is a trust established under a Will executed by Late Jeevan Lal Singhania on 02-03-1997, and was the title and possession holder of the land of Kh. No. 197, 199, 200, 202, 204 and 205, area 0.42 hect., 0.29 hect., 0.55 hect., 0.32 hect. (correct area if 0.39 hect.), 0.19 hect. And 0.40 hect., respectively, situated at village Chhatouna, P.H. No. 73/14, Tahsil Arang, District Raipur (Chhattisgarh). For the development of New Raipur under the Naya Raipur Development Project, the state government decided to acquire the land of Village Chhatouna, including the aforesaid land of the petitioner and a notification under Section 4(1) and 17(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter called as “Act of 1894”) was published in “Haribhoomi” and “Nayee Duniya” daily newspaper on 13-08-2011 and in the Gazette on 26-08-2011. The Land Acquisition Case No. 20/A-82/2010-11 was registered. In the notification issued under Section 4(1) and 17(1) of the Act of 1894 that the provisions of Section 5-A of the Act of 1894 is not applicable as the activities under the Naya Raipur Development Scheme of the State Government were carried out over the past ten years. The notification issued under Section 4(1) and 17(1) of the Act of 1894 has already been challenged by the petitioner in W.P.C. No. 6427/2011, in which an interim relief has been granted vide order dated 21-10-2011. Though the provisions of Section 5-A of the Act of 1894 are not applicable, he has filed his objection under Section 5-A of the Act of 1894 within the prescribed time limit against the proposed acquisition of his land. The Respondent No. 4 issued notice to the petitioner on 26-06-2012 for a 37 hearing on the objection. On 25-07-2012 and 03-08-2012, the Respondent Authorities dismissed the objection of the petitioner under Section 5-A of the Act of 1894. The order dated 25-07-2012 and 03-08-2012, dismissing the objection of the petitioner, is also challenged by him in W.P.C. No. 1651/2013, which is also pending. The Collector has not caused public notice in the locality at a convenient place where the land is situated. Immediately after the publication of the notification under Section 6 of the Act of 1894, the Collector should have proceeded with Section 7 of the Act of 1894, but it is not there in the present case. The petitioner filed the reply to the notice issued under Section 9 of the Act of 1894, giving details of their claims and interest. During the pendency of land acquisition proceedings, the “Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (in short “the Act of 2013”) has come into force w.e.f. 01-01-2014. 33. It is also the case of the petitioner in the present writ petition that as per the provisions of Section 24 of the Act of 2013, in cases where the land acquisition proceedings were initiated under the Act of 1894, and award has not been passed under Section 11 of the Act of 1894, all the provisions of the Act of 2013 relating to determination of compensation shall apply. In violation of the provisions of the Act of 2013, the award was passed on 03-07-2014 and fixed the compensation for the land of the petitioner, which is in gross violation of Sections 23, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29 and 30 of the Act of 2013. The Respondent authorities have not provided any opportunity for a 38 hearing to the petitioner, nor have they issued any notice to him before making the impugned award. Therefore, he is challenging the impugned award dated 03-07-2014 in the present writ petition. 34. The petitioner has also filed his rejoinder and submitted that the application for enhancement of the compensation amount under the award and the writ petition challenging the legality of the award cannot be considered as an alternate/substituted remedy to the petitioner, and both are entirely different. The writ petition is filed by the petitioner much before the filing of the said application. The award has been passed in violation of the provisions of the Act of 2013 and the Act of 1894; therefore, the writ petition has been filed. The application under Sections 64 and 69 for enhancement of the compensation amount cannot act as an impediment to challenging the legality of the award. The petitioner has not withdrawn the amount of compensation. He also denied that dispensing with the enquiry under Section 5-A of the Act of 1894 implies the notification under Section 4, 17(1) and 17(4) of the Act of 1894. There should be no composite notification, and the notification under Section 17(4) of the Act of 1894 is to be issued separately. The objection of the petitioner raised under Section 5-A of the Act of 1894 has been considered by the Land Acquisition Officer, who was not competent to decide the same. As per Section 5-A(2) of the Act of 1894, the Collector was empowered to hear and decide the objection, but in the present case, the Land Acquisition Officer has heard and decided the objection, and therefore, the action of the Respondents is illegal and arbitrary. The petitioner has already 39 challenged the action of the Respondent authorities in W.P.C. No. 1649/2013, which is also pending for consideration. The Collector has not acted under Section 7 of the Act of 1894 after publication of the notification under Section 6 of the Act of 1894. There is total non- compliance with the provisions of Sections 8 and 9 of the Act of 1894, as no notice was served upon the petitioner before rejection of his objection. It is also submitted that the new Act of 2013 comes into force w.e.f. 01-01-2014, and as per Section 24 of the Act of 2013, the pending land acquisition proceedings in which the award has not been passed, all the provisions of the Act of 2013 relating to the determination of compensation shall apply. The impugned award has been passed beyond the permissible limit under the Act of 2013 as provided under Section 24 of the Act of 2013, and therefore, the entire proceeding vitiates. It is also submitted that the impugned award is passed partially, which cannot be done. The impugned award has been passed in violation of the provisions of the Act of 2013 and in violation of the Chhattisgarh State Ideal Rehabilitation Policy, 2007. 35. The Respondent Nos. 1 to 3/State have filed their return and submitted that after culmination of the land acquisition proceeding, the challenge of the award is not maintainable. The petitioner has an efficacious alternate statutory remedy under Section 64 of the Act of 2013 with respect to challenging the award. The petitioner has already approached the Collector by filing his application under Section 64 of the Act of 2013, and therefore, the present writ petition is not maintainable. During the land acquisition proceeding, the petitioner 40 raised his objection under Section 5-A of the Act of 1894, which was duly considered by the competent authorities and decided upon. As per Section 17(1) of the Act of 1894, the appropriate Government can give a direction to the Collector for taking action after expiry of 15 days from the date of publication of the notice under Section 9 of the Act of 1894. Since the petitioner and other affected persons were allowed to submit their objections under Section 5-A of the Act of 1894, therefore, there is no necessity to issue the notification under Section 17(4) of the Act of 1894. The petitioner has already challenged the action of the Respondent Authorities in W.P.C. No. 6426/2011, which is pending for its consideration. The authorities have duly considered the objection under Section 5-A of the Act of 1894, and therefore, there is no illegality in rejecting the objection of the petitioners. 36. It is also submitted that after deciding the objections, the notification under Section 6 of the Act of 1894 was published, which has also been challenged by the petitioner in W.P.C. No. 1651/2013, and the same is also pending for consideration. The Collector is the ex-officio Deputy Secretary as per the notification dated 03-09-2003, and has issued notification under Section 6 of the Act of 1894; there is no need to take further permission as provided under Section 7 of the Act of 1894. The competent authority has also issued a notice under Section 9 of the Act of 1894, upon which the petitioner had submitted his objection raising a contention of inadequacy of the compensation amount. 41 37. It is the further reply of the Respondents/State that the new Act of 2013 came into force w.e.f. 01-01-2014, and as per the provisions of Section 24(1)(a) of the Act of 2013, if no award is passed in the land acquisition proceeding initiated before the enactment of the Act of 2013, all the provisions of the Act of 2013 for the determination of compensation will apply. In the present case, the award was passed after following the law and procedure of the Act of 2013. The proceeding started under the Act of 1894 would not lapse because of the provisions of Section 24(1)(a) of the Act of 2013. The impugned award dated 03-07-2014 is duly approved by the Divisional Commissioner, who is authorised under the notification dated 17-08-2010. In the present case, the petitioner has already approached the appropriate authority under Section 64 of the Act of 2013; therefore, the present petition is liable to be dismissed. The State Government vide its notification dated 30-01-2014, declared the village of Chhautona as an Urban area, and the compensation has been determined accordingly. The assessment of the assets of the petitioner can be considered by the appropriate authority while considering the application under Section 64 of the Act of 2013. The rehabilitation policy of 2007 has also been considered while making the award, and therefore, the petition is liable to be dismissed. 38. The respondent No. 4 NRDA has also filed their return and have submitted that before passing the award, the authorities have issued notice under Section 9 of the Act of 1894 to the petitioner, and then they have filed their objection before the land acquisition officer, which 42 has been duly considered and thereafter, award has been passed. The petitioner has already challenged the proceeding in W.P.C. No. 1651/2013, which is pending. The composite notification under Section 4, 17(1) and 17(4) of the Act of 1894 was issued, which dispensed with the notice under Section 5-A of the Act of 1894, and there is no illegality in the impugned award. The State authorities have duly considered the objection of the petitioner under Section 5-A of the Act of 1894 and proceeded in accordance with law. It is also submitted that in W.P.C. No. 1651/2013, an interim order is passed on 01-11-2013 that “during pendency of the writ petition if any award is passed by respondent No. 4, same would be subject to the decision of the writ petition”, therefore, fresh writ petition challenging the award is not maintainable. The notice issued to the petitioner under Section 9 of the Act of 1894 has been replied by him, and after considering the reply, an award has been passed. There is no violation of the provisions of the Act of 2013. W.P.C. No. 1966/2014 39. The present writ petition filed by the petitioner claims the following reliefs:- “1. That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to call for the entire records leading to passing of the impugned award dated 03-07-2014 (Annexure P-1) for its kind perusal. 43 2. That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue appropriate writ/writs quashing the impugned award dated 03-07-2014 (Annexure P-1) passed by respondent No. 3 for acquisition of the petitioner’s land in village Chhatouna, Patwari Halka No. 73/14, Tehsil Arang, District Raipur (C.G.) 3. Any other relief(s), including the cost of this petition, as it appears to be fit and appropriate to this Honourable Court be granted.” 40. The brief facts of the case of W.P.C No. 1648/2013 are that the petitioner was the title and possession holder of the land of Kh. No. 203, total area 1.55 hectares, situated at village Chhatouna, P.H. No. 73/14, Tahsil Arang, District Raipur (Chhattisgarh). For the development of New Raipur under the Naya Raipur Development Project, the state government decided to acquire the land of Village Chhatouna, including the 1.37 hectare land of the petitioner and a notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter called as “Act of 1894”) was published in “Haribhoomi” daily newspaper on 23-02-2012. In the notification published on 23-02-2012 under Section 4(1) of the Act of 1894, it has been mentioned that provisions of Section 5-A of the Act of 1894 are not applicable in the case because Section 17(1) of the Act of 1894 has been applied for the proposed acquisition of land. No notification under Section 17(4) of the Act of 1894 was issued by the respondents before issuing the notification under Section 4(1) and 17(1) of the Act of 1894. The notification issued under Section 4(1) and 17(1) of the Act of 1894 44 has already been challenged by the petitioner in W.P.C. No. 6428/2011. Though the provisions of Section 5-A of the Act of 1894 are not applicable, he has filed his objection under Section 5-A of the Act of 1894 within the prescribed time limit against the proposed acquisition of his land. The Respondent No. 4 issued notice to the petitioner on 26-06-2012 for a hearing on the objection. On 25-07-2012 and 03-08-2012, the Respondent Authorities dismissed the objection of the petitioner under Section 5-A of the Act of 1894. It is the case of the petitioner that the Respondent No. 4 was not the competent authority to hear and decide the objection under Section 5-A of the Act of 1894, yet he has decided the objection and forwarded the matter for approval of the State Government. The approval was given by the Respondent No. 2 mechanically without considering the objections. The Respondent No. 2 signed the declaration under Section 6 of the Act of 1894 on 13-08-2012 for publication in the official gazette but on the same time it has also been mentioned in the order sheet that the notification under Section 6 of the Act of 1894 be published after receiving approval of the Commissioner, rejecting applications filed under Section 5-A of the Act of 1894. Section 5-A(2) specially empowered the Collector to hear the objections against the proposed acquisition of land and to make a report to the State Government along with his recommendation on the objection. The decision taken by the State Government shall be final. It is also the case of the petitioner that the declaration made under Section 6 of the Act of 1894 is illegal and void as the same is issued without following the procedure under Section 5-A of the Act of 1894. 45 41. In the rejoinder filed by the petitioner on 23-04-2023, it is pleaded that the respondents have never informed about the rejection of the objection of the petitioner. The objection of the petitioner filed under Section 5-A of the Act of 1894 was decided by the Land Acquisition Officer without jurisdiction, and the Collector has the jurisdiction to decide the same. The declaration made under Section 6 of the Act of 1894 is illegal as the same was issued without following the procedure of Section 5-A of the Act of 1894. The objection of the petitioner has not been decided objectively, and the Respondent No. 4 was not competent to decide the same. 42. Respondent nos. 1 to 4/State has not filed its reply in the present writ petition. 43. Respondent no. 5/NRDA has filed their reply and submitted that the present petition has been filed by the petitioner on 22-10-2013 questioning the notification dated 14-08-2012 issued by the Land Acquisition Officer under Section 6 of the Act of 1894, and order dated 03-08-2012 and 25-07-2012 whereby her objection under Section 5-A of the Act of 1894 was rejected which was well within the knowledge of the petitioner. The objections were rejected, and notification under Section 6 of the Act of 1894 was published in the year 2012; therefore, the petition suffers from delay and laches. The objection raised by the petitioner under Section 5-A of the Act of 1894 has been considered in accordance with law and considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case, made recommendation on 25-07-2012 to 46 the State Government through the Commissioner, who is the ex-officio Revenue Secretary, as per the notification issued on 03-12-2009 and 15-02-1999 and by exercising the powers under Section 5-A of the Act of 1894, the Commissioner has recommended on 03-08-2012. Thereafter, the notification under Section 6 of the Act of 1894 was published and approved by the Collector on 14-08-2012. The objection raised by the petitioner has been duly considered by the authorities concerned. It is also replied in the present case that a proper opportunity of hearing was also provided to the petitioner before rejecting her objection. After approval by the Commissioner on 03-08-2012, the notification under Section 6 of the Act of 1894 was published. W.P.C. No.1969/2014 44. The present writ petition filed by the petitioner claims the following reliefs:- “1. That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to call for the entire records leading to passing of the impugned award dated 03-07-2014 (Annexure P-1) for its kind perusal. 2. That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue appropriate writ/writs quashing the impugned award dated 03-07-2014 (Annexure P-1) passed by respondent No. 3 for acquisition of the petitioner’s land in village Chhatouna, Patwari Halka No. 73/14, Tehsil Arang, District Raipur (C.G.) 47 3. Any other relief(s), including the cost of this petition, as it appears to be fit and appropriate to this Honourable Court be granted.” 45. The brief facts of the case of W.P.C No. 1969/2014 are that the petitioner was the title and possession holder of the land of Kh. No. 192, 195, 198, 201, total area 0.860 hectares, situated at village Chhatouna, P.H. No. 73/14, Tahsil Arang, District Raipur (Chhattisgarh). For the development of New Raipur under the Naya Raipur Development Project, the state government decided to acquire the land of Village Chhatouna, including the land of the petitioner and a notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter called as “Act of 1894”) was issued on 09-08-2011 and published in “Nayee Duniya” and “Haribhoomi” daily newspaper on 13-08-2011 and in the Gazette on 26-08-2011. In the notification issued on 09-08-2011 under Section 4(1) of the Act of 1894, it has been mentioned that provisions of Section 5-A of the Act of 1894 are not applicable in the case because Section 17(1) of the Act of 1894 has been applied for the proposed acquisition of land. The Land Acquisition Case No. 20/A/82/2010-11 was registered for the acquisition of the land of the petitioner and the land of others. In the notification dated 09-08-2011 issued under Section 4(1) of the Act of 1894, it is stated that the petitioner’s land is needed for the construction of a new capital city under the Naya Raipur project, and there was no emergent situation. No notification under Section 17(4) of the Act of 1894 was issued before issuing the notification under Section 4(1) and 17(1) of the Act of 1894. 48 46. The petitioner has challenged the notification issued under Section 4(1) and 17(1) of the Act of 1894 in W.P.C. No. 6426/2011, which is pending. On 09-11-2012, an interim relief was granted to the petitioner that the possession of the petitioner shall not be disturbed. The petitioner had filed her objection under Section 5-A of the Act of 1894, and after hearing the petitioner on her objection, the same was dismissed vide order dated 25-07-2012 and 03-08-2012. The petitioner has then challenged the order dated 03-08-2012 and the declaration made under Section 6 of the Act of 1894 dated 14-08-2012 in W.P.C. No. 1648/2013, which is also pending. In W.P.C. No. 1648/2013, an interim order was passed on 01-11-2013 that “during pendency of the writ petition if any award is passed by respondent No. 4, same would be subject to the decision of the writ petition”. After issuance of the declaration under Section 6 of the Act of 1894, the Collector has not acted under Section 7 of the Act of 1894. Notice under Section 9 of the Act of 1894 was issued, and the petitioner replied to the said notice giving details of her claim and interest. In the meantime, the new Act of 2013 came into force w.e.f. 01-01-2014, and the old Act of 1894 was repealed. Section 24 of the new Act of 2013 provides that in case the land acquisition proceeding initiated under the Act of 1894 and the award under Section 11 of the Act of 1894 has not been passed, all the provisions of the Act of 2013 would apply to such proceeding relating to the determination of the compensation. Subsequently, on 03-07-2014, the award has been passed by the Land Acquisition Officer, violating the provisions of the Act of 2013. No opportunity of hearing was granted to the petitioner while passing of 49 the award under Section 11 of the Act of 1894. Therefore, the present writ petition is filed challenging the award dated 03-07-2014. 47. In the rejoinder filed by the petitioner on 23-04-2023, it is pleaded that the issue involved in the W.P.C. No. 1648/2013 is entirely different then the issue involved in the present case. The respondents Nos. 2 and 3 have failed to give public notice under Sections 7, 8 and 9 of the Act of 1894, and no opportunity of hearing contemplated under Section 11 of the Act of 1894 was provided to the petitioner. No opportunity of hearing was provided before deciding her objection under Section 9 of the Act of 1894. It is further pleaded that the composite notification under Section 4(1), 17(1) and 17(4) of the Act of 1894 cannot be issued. It is not dispensing with the requirement of Section 5-A of the Act of 1894. The Land Acquisition Officer was not competent to decide the objection under Section 5-A of the Act of 1894, and the Collector was the competent Authority for the same. The State Government mechanically approved the report without applying its mind to its public purpose and suitability of the land. The notification under Section 6 of the Act of 1894 was issued without complying with the provisions of Section 5-A of the Act of 1894. The award is passed overlooking the provisions of the Act of 2013, which came into force w.e.f. 01-01-2014 and relevant notifications issued by the State Government. 48. The Respondent Nos. 1 to 3/State have filed their return and submitted that after culmination of the land acquisition proceeding, the 50 challenge of the award is not maintainable. The petitioner has an efficacious alternate statutory remedy under Section 64 of the Act of 2013 with respect to challenging the award. The petitioner has already approached the Collector by filing his application under Section 64 of the Act of 2013, and therefore, the present writ petition is not maintainable. During the land acquisition proceeding, the petitioner raised his objection under Section 5-A of the Act of 1894, which was duly considered by the competent authorities and decided upon. As per Section 17(1) of the Act of 1894, the appropriate Government can give a direction to the Collector for taking action after expiry of 15 days from the date of publication of the notice under Section 9 of the Act of 1894. Since the petitioner and other affected persons were allowed to submit their objections under Section 5-A of the Act of 1894, therefore, there is no necessity to issue the notification under Section 17(4) of the Act of 1894. The petitioner has already challenged the action of the Respondent Authorities in W.P.C. No. 6426/2011, which is pending for its consideration. The authorities have duly considered the objection under Section 5-A of the Act of 1894, and therefore, there is no illegality in rejecting the objection of the petitioners. 49. It is also submitted that after deciding the objections, the notification under Section 6 of the Act of 1894 was published, which has also been challenged by the petitioner in W.P.C. No. 1648/2013, and the same is also pending for consideration. The Collector is the ex-officio Deputy Secretary as per the notification dated 03-09-2003, and has issued notification under Section 6 of the Act of 1894; there is no need to take 51 further permission as provided under Section 7 of the Act of 1894. The competent authority has also issued a notice under Section 9 of the Act of 1894, upon which the petitioner had submitted his objection raising a contention of inadequacy of the compensation amount. 50. It is the further reply of the Respondents/State that the new Act of 2013 came into force w.e.f. 01-01-2014, and as per the provisions of Section 24(1)(a) of the Act of 2013, if no award is passed in the land acquisition proceeding initiated before the enactment of the Act of 2013, all the provisions of the Act of 2013 for the determination of compensation will apply. In the present case, the award was passed after following the law and procedure of the Act of 2013. The proceeding started under the Act of 1894 would not lapse because of the provisions of Section 24(1)(a) of the Act of 2013. The impugned award dated 03-07-2014 is duly approved by the Divisional Commissioner, who is authorised under the notification dated 17-08-2010. In the present case, the petitioner has already approached the appropriate authority under Section 64 of the Act of 2013; therefore, the present petition is liable to be dismissed. The State Government vide its notification dated 30-01-2014, declared the village of Chhautona as an Urban area, and the compensation has been determined accordingly. The assessment of the assets of the petitioner can be considered by the appropriate authority while considering the application under Section 64 of the Act of 2013. The rehabilitation policy of 2007 has also been considered while making the award, and therefore, the petition is liable to be dismissed. 52 51. The respondent No. 4 NRDA has also filed their return and have submitted that before passing the award, the authorities have issued notice under Section 9 of the Act of 1894 to the petitioner, and then they have filed their objection before the land acquisition officer, which has been duly considered and thereafter, award has been passed. The petitioner has already challenged the proceeding in W.P.C. No. 1648/2013, which is pending. The composite notification under Section 4, 17(1) and 17(4) of the Act of 1894 was issued, which dispensed with the notice under Section 5-A of the Act of 1894, and there is no illegality in the impugned award. The State authorities have duly considered the objection of the petitioner under Section 5-A of the Act of 1894 and proceeded in accordance with law. It is also submitted that in W.P.C. No. 1651/2013, an interim order is passed on 01-11-2013 that “during pendency of the writ petition if any award is passed by respondent No. 4, same would be subject to the decision of the writ petition”, therefore, fresh writ petition challenging the award is not maintainable. The notice issued to the petitioner under Section 9 of the Act of 1894 has been replied by him, and after considering the reply, an award has been passed. There is no violation of the provisions of the Act of 2013. 52. From the aforesaid pleadings and challenge in the writ petitions, there are three sets of petitions, and based on the relief claimed in the writ petitions, they can be put in to three groups, i.e. 53 (1) W.P.C. No. 6426/2011, W.P.C. No. 6427/2011, and W.P.C. No. 6428/2011 relate to challenging the impugned notification dated 09-08-2011 published in the official gazette on 26-08-2011. (2) W.P.C. No. 1648/2013, W.P.C. No. 1649/2013 and W.P.C. No. 1651/2013relate to challenging the notification dated 14-08-2012 published in official gazette on 24-08- 2012 and in newspaper on 23-08-2012 and also the order dated 25-07-2012 and 03-08-2012. (3) W.P.C. No. 1966/2014, W.P.C. No. 1967/2014 and W.P.C. No. 1969/2014 relate to challenging the award dated 03-07-2014. W.P.C. No. 6426/2011, W.P.C. No. 6427/2011 and W.P.C. 6428/2011 53. Learned counsel for the respective petitioners would submit that the notification dated 09-08-2011 was issued under Section 4(1) of the Act of 1894 for the acquisition of the land of the petitioner for a public purpose. Section 5-A of the Act of 1894 gives a right to land landowner whose land was notified. The Collector was required to give the petitioner an opportunity of being heard; thereafter, he had to make a report to the appropriate Government. Section 5-A of the Act of 1894 is not an empty formality, and the important ingredient of “Public Purpose” is absent in the proposed acquisition. The mere existence of urgency is a condition precedent for invoking Section 17(4) of the Act 54 of 1894, and that by itself is not sufficient to direct to dispensing with inquiry under Section 5-A of the Act of 1894. There is no urgency in the matter, which itself shown in the return of the NRDA that the proposal for the acquisition of the land was made on 14-03-2011, the notification under Section 4(1) and 17(1) of the Act of 1894 was issued on 09-08-2011 and published in the official Gazette on 26-08-2011 but no declaration under Section 6 of the Act of 1894 was published for a considerable period. The Government has not taken any decision to dispense with the provisions of Section 5-A of the Act of 1894. He would further submit that even if the development plan it treated with the public purpose within the meaning of Section 4 of the Act of 1894, there was no urgency which could justify the exercise of powers of the State Government under Section 17(1) and 17(4) of the Act of 1894. Thus, it is apparent that the land of the petitioner is illegally and arbitrarily notified without there being any public purpose and without following the provisions under the Act of 1894, and the same is liable to be set aside/quashed. 54. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the State as well as learned counsel for the NRDA opposes the submissions made by the petitioner and has submitted that under the Naya Raipur Development Plan, 2031, total 20.69 hect. Of the land of village Chhatouna including the land of the petitioner was acquired. A notice under Section 4(1) and 17(1) of the Act of 1894 was issued on 09-08-2011 and published in the official gazette on 26-08-2011 and in local newspapers on 13-08-2011. The petitioner had made her objection under Section 5-A 55 of the Act of 1894. Vide order dated 19-06-2012, the petitioner was called for hearing under Section 5-A of the Act of 1894, and proper opportunity of hearing was provided to the petitioner under Section 5-A of the Act of 1894. Vide order dated 25-07-2012, the objection of the petitioner was rejected and the Land Acquisition Officer recommended it to the Collector for its approval, which was approved on 25-07-2012 itself. On the same day, it was sent to Commissioner/ex-officio Secretary, for their approval. On 13-08-2012, the Collector had approved the publication of notification under Section 6 of the Act of 1894. The powers under Section 5-A and 17 of the Act of 1894 was delegated to the Divisional commissioner vide notification dated 03-12-2009 whereby the earlier notification dated 15-02-1999 was recreated. Therefore, the impugned notification issued by the State Government is proper, legal and strictly in accordance with law. The objections raised by the petitioner has been duly considered by the authorities. The Commissioner, Raipur, after considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case as well as the provisions of the Act of 1894 and also with the enquiry made from NRDA, decided to invoke the provisions of Section 17 of the Act of 1894. There is satisfaction and justification of the Commissioner for invoking Section 17 of the Act of 1894 in the case. he would further submit that all the provisions of the Act of 1894 have been duly complied with and subsequently, the award has been passed on 03-07-2014 and therefore, no relief can be granted to the petitioner in the present petition and the same is liable to be dismissed. 56 55. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents annexed with the petition. 56. Before entering into merits of the case, it is necessary to quote the provisions of Section 4, 5 and 17 of the Act of 1894 which reads as under:- “4. Publication of preliminary notification and power of officers thereupon. - (1) Whenever it appears to the [appropriate Government] the land in any locality [is needed or] is likely to be needed for any public purpose [or for a company], a notification to that effect shall be published in the Official Gazette [and in two daily newspapers circulating in that locality of which at least one shall be in the regional language], and the Collector shall cause public notice of the substance of such notification to be given at convenient places in the said locality [(the last of the dates of such publication and the giving of such public notice , being hereinafter referred to as the date of the publication of the notification)]. (2) Thereupon it shall be lawful for any officer, either generally or specially authorized by such Government in this behalf, and for his servants and workman, - to enter upon and survey and take levels of any land in such locality; 57 to dig or bore into the sub-soil; to do all other acts necessary to ascertain whether the land is adapted for such purpose; to set out the boundaries of the land proposed to be taken and the intended line of the work (if any) proposed to be made thereon; to mark such levels, boundaries and line by placing marks and cutting trenches; and, where otherwise the survey cannot be completed and the levels taken and the boundaries and line marked, to cut down and clear away any part of any standing crop, fence or jungle; Provided that no person shall enter into any building or upon any enclosed court or garden attached to a dwelling house (unless with the consent of the occupier thereof) without previously giving such occupier at least seven days' notice in writing of his intention to do so. 5. Payment for damage. - The officer so authorized shall at the time of such entry pay or tender payment for all necessary damaged to be done as aforesaid, and, in case of dispute as to the sufficiency of the amount so paid or tendered, he shall at once refer the dispute to the decision of the Collector or other chief revenue officer of the district, and such decision shall be final. 17. Special powers in case of urgency. – 58 (1) In cases of urgency whenever the [appropriate Government], so directs, the Collector, though no such award has been made, may, on the expiration of fifteen days from the publication of the notice mentioned in section 9, sub-section 1). [take possession of any land needed for a public purpose]. Such land shall thereupon [vest absolutely in the [Government], free from all encumbrances. (2) Whenever, owing to any sudden change in the channel of any navigable river or other unforeseen emergency, it becomes necessary for any Railway Administration to acquire the immediate possession of any land for the maintenance of their traffic or for the purpose of making thereon a river-side or ghat station, or of providing convenient connection with or accesses to any such station, [or the appropriate Government considers it necessary to acquire the immediate possession of any land for the purpose of maintaining any structure or system pertaining to irrigation, water supply, drainage, road communication or electricity,] the Collector may immediately after the publication of the notice mentioned in sub-section (1) and with the previous sanction of the [appropriate Government], enter upon and take possession of such land, which shall thereupon [vest absolutely in the [Government]] free from all encumbrances : Provided that the Collector shall not take possession of any building or part of a building under this sub- 59 section without giving to the occupier thereof at least forty-eight hours notice of his intention so to do, or such longer notice as may be reasonably sufficient to enable such occupier to remove his movable property from such building without unnecessary inconvenience. (3) In every case under either of the preceding sub- sections the Collector shall at that time of taking possession offer to the persons interested compensation for the standing crops and trees (if any) on such land and from any other damage sustained by them caused by such sudden dispossession and not excepted in section 24; and, in case such offer is not accepted, the value of such crops and trees and the amount of such other damage shall be allowed for in awarding compensation for the land under the provisions herein contained. 3[(3A) Before taking possession of any land under sub-section (1) or sub-section (2), the Collector shall, without prejudice to the provisions of sub- section (3)- (a) tender payment of eighty per centum of the compensation for such land as estimated by him to the person interested entitled thereto, and (b) pay it to them, unless prevented by some one or more of the contingencies mentioned in section 31, sub-section (2), and where the Collector is so 60 prevented, the provisions of section 31, sub-section (2), (except the second proviso thereto), shall apply as they apply to the payment of compensation under that section. (3B) The amount paid or deposited under section (3A), shall be taken into account for determining the amount of compensation required to be tendered under section 31, and where the amount so paid or deposited exceeds the compensation awarded by the Collector under section 11, the excess may, unless refunded within three months from the date of Collector's award, be recovered as an arrear of land revenue]. [(4) In the case of any land to which, in the opinion of the [appropriate Government], the provisions of sub-section (1) or sub-section (2) are applicable, the [appropriate Government] may direct that the provisions of section 5A shall not apply, and, if it does so direct, a declaration may be made under section 6 in respect of the land at any time [after the date of the publication of the notification] under section 4, sub-section (1).]” 57. Section 17 (4) of the Act of 1894 clearly provides that the Appropriate Government may direct that the provisions of Section 5-A of the Act of 1894 shall not apply, and if it does so direct, a declaration may be made under Section 6 of the Act of 1894 at any time after the date of publication of the notification under Section 4(1) of the Act of 1894. In 61 the present case, in the notification dated 09-08-2011 published in official gazette on 26-08-2011 and daily newspapers on 13-08-2011, it is mentioned that the provisions of Section 5-A of the Act of 1894 is not applicable because the provisions of Section 17 (1) of the Act of 1894 is applicable. It also reflects from the order sheet dated 19-06-2012 of the land acquisition officer, Arang-Abhanpur, that in W.P.C. No. 5342/2011 and 5206/2011, the petitioners (petitioners in the said writ petitions) are to be given opportunity of hearing under Section 5-A of the Act of 1894, the present petitioners were also heard on her objection and vide order dated 25-07-2012, the objections were rejected and reasons were assigned for its rejection and the same was approved on 25-07-2012 by the Collector. The order of rejection of the objections has further been approved by the Commissioner, who was the ex-officio Secretary duly authorized by the notification issued by the Appropriate Government, and thereafter the notification under Section 6 of the Act of 1894 was issued. The report submitted by the land acquisition officer does not suffer from the non-application of mind because he has duly considered the objections and reasons have been assigned for its rejection. In the matter of “Jayabheri Properties (P) Ltd. and Others v. State of Andhra Pradesh and Others”, 2010 (5) SCC 590, the Hon’ble Apex Court has held that the allegation of non-providing adequate opportunity of hearing is without substance as the objections were duly considered by the officer concerned and rejected the same. In the present case also, the petitioner was provided opportunity of hearing and then only their objections were rejected by the land acquisition officer, that too by assigning reasons. 62 The decision taken by the land acquisition officer has been approved by the Collector on 25-07-2012 and approved by the Commissioner also who is duly authorized by the notification by appropriate government. Therefore, there is no illegality or irregularity in proceeding of the land acquisition officer about non-compliance of Section 5-A of the Act of 1894. 58. In the matter of “State of Haryana and others v. Vinod Oil and General Mills and another” 2014 (15) SCC 410, in para 10, 12 and 13 the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that:- “10. The land was acquired for development and utilization of the same for residential and commercial purposes in Sector 9 & 11, Hissar. So far as the purpose of acquisition of land is concerned, the High Court observed that “the acquisition is not for essential public services such as development of infrastructure, railways, metro or the purpose related thereto, irrigation, water supply, drainage, road, communication etc..…”. High Court was not correct in observing that only development of infrastructure, railways or irrigation, water supply, drainage, road etc. are primary public purposes. Public purpose includes a purpose involving general interest of community as opposed to the interest of an individual directly or indirectly involved. Individual interest must give way to public 63 interest as far as public purpose in respect of acquisition of land is concerned. 12. Prima facie, State is the first Judge to determine whether there exists public purpose or not. But the decision of the State is not beyond judicial scrutiny. The Courts have the jurisdiction and it is their duty to determine the matter whenever a question is raised whether a requisition order is or is not for a public purpose. In Sooraram Pratap Reddy & Ors., vs. Distt. Collector, Ranga Reddy Dist. & Ors., (2008) 9 SCC 552, it was held as under: “133……….It is primarily for the State to decide whether there exits public purpose or not. Undoubtedly, the decision of the State is not beyond judicial scrutiny. In appropriate cases, where such power is exercised mala fide or for collateral purposes or the purported action is dehors the Act, irrational or otherwise unreasonable or the so-called purpose is “no public purpose” at all and fraud on statute is apparent, a writ-court can undoubtedly interfere. But except in such cases, the declaration of the Government is not subject to judicial review. In other words, a writ court, while exercising powers under Articles 32 , 226 or 136 of the Constitution, cannot substitute its own judgment for the judgment of the Government as to what constitutes “public purpose”.” 64 13. While determining the question whether a requisition order is or is not for a public purpose, the facts and circumstances in each case are to be closely examined in order to determine whether a public purpose has been established. The requirement of land for residential and commercial purposes and for development of the Sector involves in it an element of general interest of the community and whatever furthers the general interest must be regarded as a ‘public purpose’ as opposed to the particular interest of individuals.” 59. In the present petition, the challenge is to the notification issued under Section 4(1) and 17(1) of the Act of 1894. Section 17 of the Act of 1894 provides the special powers in case of urgency. The Appropriate Government may direct the Collector to take possession of the land needed for the public purpose after expiration of 15 days from the publication of the notification under Section 9 of the Act of 1894. The applicability of Section 5-A of the Act of 1894 may also be dispense with in the notification so issued under Section 17 of the Act of 1894. From the documents annexed with the return of the State Government, it also reflects that most of the land required for development plan was either purchased by the State Government under the purchase by mutual consent policy or have been transferred to the State Government and only small piece of land were remained to be acquired. Due to the small piece of land, the entire development plan is delaying and hampered. Considering the genuine urgency of acquisition of the land, the notification under Section 4(1) and 17(1) of 65 the Act of 1894 was published. The urgency was considered by the land acquisition officer as well as the Collector and Commissioner, and only thereafter, the notification was issued for acquisition of land dispensing the provisions of Section 5-A of the Act of 1894. Therefore, this court does not find any irregularity or illegality in issuing the notification dated 09-08-2011 and 26-08-2011. 60. In view of the above, all there three writ petitions (W.P.C. No. 6426/2011, W.P.C. No. 6427/2011 and W.P.C. 6428/2011) are hereby dismissed. W.P.C. No. 1648/2013, W.P.C. No.1649/2013 and W.P.C. 1651/2013 61. Learned counsel for the respective petitioners would submit that in the present writ petitions, the petitioners have challenged the notification dated 14-08-2012 published in official gazette on 24-08-2012 and in newspapers on 23-08-2012 issued under Section 6 of the Act of 1894 and also the order dated 25-07-2012 and 03-08-2012 whereby the rejection of the objection under Section 5-A of the Act of 1894 was approved by the Commissioner. 62. As has been discussed hereinabove that the notification under Section 4(1) and 17(1) of the Act of 1894 was issued after considering the urgency in the case and after hearing on the objection of the petitioner, the same was rejected which was duly approved by the Commissioner, this court does not fine any other material to interfere in these writ petitions to quash the subject land acquisition proceeding 66 which has already been finalized and award has been passed on 03-07-2014. The facts and pleadings of the parties are overlapping in all these writ petitions and further consideration again the pleading of the parties in present writ petitions would amount to then repetition, and therefore, in view of the consideration made hereinabove, all these three writ petitions (W.P.C. No. 1648/2013, W.P.C. No.1649/2013 and W.P.C. 1651/2013) are also dismissed. W.P.C. No. 1965/2014, W.P.C. No.1966/2014 and W.P.C. 1969/2014 63. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit in these three writ petitions, the award dated 03-07-2014 passed in land acquisition case No. 20/A-82/2010-11 is under challenge. The ground of challenge is that the provisions of Sections 4, 6 and 7 of the Act of 1894 have not been complied with. As per Section 9 of the Act of 1894, the Collector is required to give public notice to the interested persons whose land is proposed to be acquired, but there is no notice in the present case. The objection was rejected based on the recommendation and reply of the NRDA, which is against the provisions of the Act of 1894. During the pendency of the land acquisition proceeding, the new Act of 2013 came into force w.e.f. 01-01-2014, and the provisions of the new Act are applicable because the award was not passed under Section 11 of the Act of 1894 on the date when the new Act of 2013 came into force. The Respondent Authorities have not complied with Section 24(1)(a) of the Act of 2013, and the award has been passed under Section 23 of the Act of 2013. 67 64. He would further submit that, the impugned award has been made after the expiry of period of 12 months from the date of publication of declaration, which is in violation of Section 25 of the Act of 2013 and thereby, the entire proceeding for acquisition of land shall lapse. No decision has been taken by the appropriate government to extend the period of 12 months for making the award. The procedure for determination of the compensation against the acquisition of land has also not been complied with and the respondent authorities have made a partial award. On the date of publication of notification under Section 4 of the Act of 1894, the petitioners’ land fall within rural area and the compensation of the petitioners’ land ought to have been calculated as per the guidelines treating the petitioners’ land in rural area, whereas the compensation has been calculated considering the petitioners’ land in urban area. The assessment of the land and assets of the petitioners has not been properly done and the building, trees and plants of the land of the petitioners have not been assessed and no compensation has been paid for the same. There is no notification issued by the State Government authorizing the respondent No.3 to discharge the functions of the Collector under the Act of 2013 and the impugned order is passed by the Land Acquisition Officer without any authority and therefore, the impugned award is liable to be quashed. 65. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the State as well as the NRDA vehemently opposes the submissions made by learned counsel for the respective petitioners and have submitted that, the sole objection of the petitioners are that they should be provided an 68 opportunity under Section 9 of the Act of 1894, the petitioners are having efficacious alternative remedy of filing their objection under Section 64 of the Act of 2013, which he has already availed before the competent authority for enhancement of compensation in accordance with the Act of 2013. The petitioners cannot challenge the award in both these proceedings simultaneously. He would further submit that the objection under Section 5-A of the Act of 1894 has been duly considered by the Land Acquisition Officer, which has been approved by the Commissioner. Proper opportunity of hearing was provided in every stage of the land acquisition proceeding and the objections of the petitioners have been considered and rejected. There is no violation of any provisions, either of the Act of 1894 or of the Act of 2013. He would further submit that the proceeding under the Act of 1894 would not automatically lapse after coming into force of new Act of 2013, however the same was continued as provided under Sections 24 and 25 of the Act of 2013. The land acquisition proceeding initiated under the Act of 1894 would not lapse and the award has been passed under the Act of 2013. It is also submitted by him that the appropriate government has already designated the Collector as ex-officio Deputy Secretary vide notification dated 03.09.2003, and therefore, there was no need to take permission from the appropriate government for declaration under Section 6 of the Act of 1894 and there is no violation of Section 7 of the said Act. The notice issued under Section 9 of the Act of 1894 have duly been served to the petitioners and they raised their objection, reply of NRDA were called and after considering the objection and reply, the objection of the petitioners has been decided. 69 66. There is no procedural irregularity or illegality in the land acquisition proceeding and deciding the objection of the petitioners as well as finalization of the proceedings initiated under Section 11 of the Act of 1894. The compensation of the land of the respective petitioners have been determined by the competent authority in accordance with the provisions of the Act of 1894 and the Act of 2013. The respective petitioners are aggrieved by the determination of the compensation, for which they already availed the remedy under Section 64 of the Act of 2013. It is also submitted that vide notification dated 30.09.2014, issued by the State Government, the village Chhatauna has been declared as urban area, and thus, the compensation of the land of the petitioners has rightly been determined considering the same as the land in urban area. The determination of the appropriate compensation is having various factual issues, which cannot be decided in the present writ petitions. It is further submitted that there is no requirement for authorization by the State Government to the respondent No.3/Land Acquisition Officer to discharge the functions of Collector under the Act of 2013, because the same is protected under Section 24(1) of the Act of 2013. Since the land acquisition proceeding was initiated under the Act of 1894 and during its pendency, the new Act of 2013 came into force, there is no need for authorization by the State Government. After complying with the provisions of either the Act of 1894 or the Act of 2013, the award has been passed and there is no illegality or irregularity in the same and the writ petitions are liable to be dismissed. 70 67. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents annexed with these writ petitions. 68. As discussed herein above, while deciding the other writ petitions, it has been observed that the objection of the respective petitioners under Section 5-A of the Act of 1894 has been considered and decided after providing opportunity of hearing to them. After due approval from the Commissioner, who is the ex-officio Secretary duly authorized by the notification, issued by the appropriate government, the notification under Section 6 were issued. Considering the urgency in the land acquisition proceeding, the notification under Sections 4(1) and 17(1) of the Act of 1894 was issued. From perusal of the impugned award dated 03.07.2014, it transpires that vide letter dated 07.08.2012, issued by the NRDA, it was informed to the authorities that, certain lands under the land acquisition proceeding are separated by the order passed by the High Court with respect to providing opportunity of hearing under Section 5-A of the Act of 1894 and some land were purchased under the Purchase by Mutual Consent Policy and then a new notification for acquisition of 15.45 hectares of land of village Chhatauna was issued on 14.08.2012 and published in the official gazette on 24.08.2012, which was also published in 02 daily newspapers Nayee Duniya on 18.08.2012 and Desh Bandhu on 23.08.2012. As per Section 11 of the Act of 1894, the award is to be passed within 02 years from the date of publication of notification under Section 6 of the Act of 1894, but in the meantime, the new Act of 2013 came into force w.e.f. 01.01.2014 and Section 24(1)(a) of the Act 71 of 2013 provides that where the award has not been passed under Section 11 of the Act of 1894, the procedure for determination of the compensation shall be governed by the Act of 2013 and thereafter, considering the provisions of Section 25 of the Act of 2013, the award has been passed on 03.07.2014. In the award dated 03.07.2014, the manner in which the compensation of the land of affected persons were assessed, has also been mentioned. In the matter of “May George v. Special Tahsildar and others” reported in 2010 (13) SCC 98, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that, mere irregularity in service of notice under Section 9 of the Act of 1894 is a curable irregularity and on account thereof, the award under Section 11 would not become invalid. In para 29 of its judgment, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that:- “29. The view taken by us hereinabove stands fortified by large number of judgments of this Court wherein it has been held that if there is an irregularity in service of notice under sections 9 and 10, it could be a curable irregularity and on account thereof, Award under Section 11 would not become invalid (see : State of Tamil Nadu Vs. Mahalakshmi Ammal & Ors. (1996) 7 SCC 269; and Nasik Municipal Corporation v. Harbanslal Laikwant Rajpal and Ors. (1997) 4 SCC 199).” 69. Further, with respect to the quantum and determination of compensation of the land and assets of the respective petitioners, they 72 have already approached before the competent authority under Section 64 of the Act of 2013, this Court refrains himself by considering the grievances of the petitioners about adequacy of the compensation, which are to be decided by the competent authority. Further, once the petitioners claimed the enhancement of the compensation amount and assessment of the assets standing on their land, the petitioners cannot take the dual benefit by challenging the award on the ground of procedural irregularity and illegality and other side they are claiming higher compensation under the award. It also transpires from the order-sheets of the competent authority, which has been filed in these petitions on 09.05.2023 that the application filed by the petitioners under Section 64 of the Act of 2013 has been dismissed for want of prosecution on 09.04.2019. For the reason best known to the petitioners, the application pending before the competent authority could not be revived for its consideration, and there is no document with respect to the revival of the application before the competent authority. 70. Further, the submissions of the learned counsel for the respondents that by the notification dated 30.01.2014, the village Chhatauna has been declared as urban area, has not been specifically denied by the petitioners. However, he would submit that on the date of publication of notification under Section 4 of the Act of 1894, their land was in rural area, yet the compensation has been determined considering the land of the petitioners in urban area. The dispute with respect to belonging the land under rural area or urban area, does not affect the validity of 73 the award, but it may change the quantum of compensation assessed by the authorities, which can be very well decided by the competent authority under Section 64 of the Act of 2013 and the award cannot be nullify on this ground alone. 71. It is also necessary to mention here that, in WPC No. 6246 of 2011, there is an interim order on 09.11.2012 that the possession of the property in dispute of the respective petitioners shall not be disturbed till the next date of hearing. 72. From the aforesaid discussions, this Court is of the opinion that the Land Acquisition Officer and the respondent authorities have duly complied with the provisions of the Act of 1894 and the Act of 2013 and the Land Acquisition Officer has passed the award on 03.07.2014, in which this Court has not found any palpable infirmity or illegality to quash the same. 73. Accordingly, these three writ petitions (WPC No. 1965/2014, WPC No. 1966/2014 and WPC No. 1969/2014) are hereby dismissed. WPC No. 1944/2017, WPC No. 2517/2017 and WPC No. 2520/2017 74. The issues involved in all three writ petitions, therefore, are being analogously heard and decided together by this common order. 75. The WPC No. 1944/2017 is filed by the petitioner Aayushi Jain for the following reliefs:- 74 “10.1 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to hold & declare by appropriate writ/ writs that the impugned notification No.F-4-28/Seven-1/2014 dated 04.12.2014 (Annexure P/1) unconstitutional, ultra-vires to the provisions of The Constitution of India and issue contrary to the provisions of Act, 2013. 10.2 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue appropriate writ/writs quashing the impugned land acquisition proceeding bearing No.12-A/82 year 2012-13 (Annexure P/2) for acquisition of petitioners' land situated at village Nimora, Tahsil Abhanpur, District Raipur (C.G.); 10.3 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue appropriate writ/writs quashing the impugned award dated 22.12.2015 (Annexure P/3) passed in the impugned land acquisition proceeding by respondent No.4 for acquisition of petitioners' land situated at village Nimora, Tahsil Abhanpur, District Raipur, 10.4 That, if the Hon'ble Court is pleased to upheld the impugned award and land acquisition proceedings, the compensation awarded may kindly be suitably enhanced and compensation be determined as per provisions of 25 to 31 of Act, 2013. 10.5 Any other relief(s), including the cost of this petition, as it appears to be fit and appropriate to this Honourable Court be granted.” 75 76. The WPC No. 2517/2017 is filed by the petitioner Smt. Vinita Agrawal for the following reliefs:- “10.1 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to hold & declare by appropriate writ/ writs that the impugned notification No.F-4-28/Seven-1/2014 dated 04.12.2014 (Annexure P/1) is unconstitutional, ultra wires to the provisions of The Constitution of India and issue contrary to the provisions of Act, 2013. 10.2 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue appropriate writ/writs quashing the impugned land acquisition proceeding bearing No.12-A/82 year 2012-13 (Annexure P/2) fer acquisition of petitioners' land situated at village Nimora, Tahsil Abhanpur, District Raipur (C.G.); 10.3 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue appropriate writ/writs quashing the impugned award dated 22.12.2015 (Annexure P/3) passed in the impugned land acquisition proceeding by respondent No.4 for acquisition of petitioners' land situated at village Nimora, Tahsil Abhanpur, District Raipur; 10.4 That, if the Hon'ble Court is pleased to upheld the impugned award and land acquisition proceedings, the compensation awarded may kindly be suitably enhanced and compensation be determined as per provisions of 25 to 31 of Act, 2013. 76 10.5 Any other relief(s), including the cost of this petition, as it appears to be fit and appropriate to this Honourable Court be granted.” 77. The WPC No. 2520/2017 is filed by the petitioner Vikas Agrawal for the following reliefs:- “10.1 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to hold & declare by appropriate writ/ writs that the impugned notification No.F-4-28/Seven-1/2014 dated 04.12.2014 (Annexure P / 1 ) is unconstitutional, ultra- vires to the provisions of The Constitution of India and contrary to the provisions of Act, 2013. 10.2 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue appropriate writ/writs quashing the impugned land acquisition proceeding bearing 11 + (- A) / 82 year 2012-13 (Annexure P / 2 ) for acquisition of petitioner' land situated at village Navagaon, Tahsil Arang, District Raipur (C.G.); 10.3 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue appropriate writ/writs quashing the impugned award dated 31.12.2015 (Annexure P / 3 ) passed in the impugned land acquisition proceeding by respondent No.3 for acquisition of petitioner' land situated at village Navagaon, Tahsil Arang, District Raipur; 10.4 That, if the Hon'ble Court is pleased to upheld the impugned award and land acquisition proceedings, the compensation awarded may kindly be suitably 77 enhanced and compensation be determined as per provisions of 25 to 31 of Act, 2013. 10.5 Any other relief(s), including the cost of this petition, as it appears to be fit and appropriate to this Honourable Court be granted.” 78. In WPC No. 2517/2017, the petitioner has claimed relief in para 10.1 that the impugned notification No. F-4-28/Seven-1/2014, dated 04-12-2014 (Annexure P-1) is unconstitutional and ultra-vires and contrary to the provisions of the Act of 2013. The said issue has been settled by the Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court in the case of “Smt. Anita Agrawal v. State of Chhattisgarh and Others” (W.P.C. No. 1649 of 2017 and a batch of petitions, vide order dated 30-10-2018) and the impugned notification No. F-4-28/Seven-1/2014, dated 04-12-2014, has been struck down, and the state government was directed to issue a fresh notification indicating the multiplier factors in terms of the guidelines laid down in the statute and the judgment. Therefore, the relief claimed in para 10.1 of the writ petition would become redundant, and the petitioner is not pressing such relief. 79. So far as the relief claimed in para 10.2 and 10.3 of the writ petition is concerned, learned counsel for the respective petitioners has submitted that the Hon’ble Division Bench of this court has passed the order on 25-07-2024 in W.A. No. 30/2019 in which the issue involved in the 10.3 of the prayer column has also been settled that the award should have been passed within 12 months of the notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and the entire proceeding 78 of acquisition of land shall lapsed if the award is not passed within such period. In the present case also, the notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, was published on 23-03-2013 (in WPC No. 1944/2017), 21-03-2013 (in WPC No. 2517/2017) and 22-03-2013 (in WPC No. 2520/2017) whereas the award has been passed on 22-12-2015 (in WPC No. 1944/2017 and WPC No. 2520/2017) and 31-12-2015 (in WPC No. 2520/2017). Therefore, the entire land acquisition proceeding would lapse by the efflux of time, and the state government is at liberty to draw a fresh process of acquisition in accordance with law under the Act of 2013 if they still require the land for public purposes. 80. In view of the aforementioned submissions of the learned counsel for the respective petitioners, the facts that emerge from the pleading of the writ petition and the documents annexed therewith are that:- WPC No. 1944/2017 81. The petitioner is the title and possession holder of the land bearing Kh. No. 1145/1, 1145/2, 1147 and 1148, total area 1.646 Hectare, situated at village Nimora, Tahsil Abhanpur, District Raipur, out of which total 1.557 Hectares of land is to be acquired by the respondents. The respondent no. 3 has initiated the land acquisition proceeding for establishment and development of Naya Raipur through the respondent no. 5 which is the agency to establish and develop the Naya Raipur and named as Naya Raipur Development authority (in short NRDA). 79 82. The respondent no. 3 issued a notification under section 4 of the Act of 1894, for the acquisition of land of the petitioner and land acquisition case no. 12/A-82/ 2012-13 has been registered. The said notification was published in two daily newspapers, ‘Hari Bhoomi’ and ‘Nayi Dunia’ on 23-03-2013 and published in the official gazette on 29-03-2013. It is the case of the petitioner that the said notification is never published and affixed in the locality where the land is situated. It is also the case of the petitioner that the approval by the state government was granted in a different land acquisition proceeding, i.e.’ land acquisition case no. 11/A-82/2012-13. The said approval was also used in land acquisition case no. 12/A-82/2012-13 further the declaration under section 6 of the act of 1894 was published in the newspaper on 23-03-2014 and published in the official gazette on 21-03-2014 which also bears the land acquisition case no. 11/A-82/2012-13. 83. In the mean time the new act of 2013 came into force from 01-01-2014 and as per the provisions of new act of 2013, the declaration made under section 6 of the act of 1894 which is published after 01-01-2014 is void ab initio. As per the provisions of section 24 of Act of 2013, in cases where the land acquisition proceedings initiated under the Act of 1894, and the award has not been passed under section 11 of the said act, all the provisions of the Act of 2013 shall applied. Section 23 of the act of 2013 provides for inquiry and land acquisition award by the collector whereas section 24 of the act of 2013 contends the provisions regarding the applicability of the act of 2013 for determination of compensation as per the act of 2013 where no award 80 has been passed under section 11 of the old act of 1894 in the proceeding initiated under the act of 1894. 84. It is also the case of the petitioner that the relevant date for determination of market value of the land for compensation is the date on which preliminary notification under section 4 of the act. Of 1894 or under section 11 of the act of 2013 is issued. The respondent no. 2 issued the notification on 30-01-2014 whereby declared certain revenue villages as urban area however the petitioners land was rural area when the notification under section 4 of the act of 1894 was issued and thus the compensation for the petitioner’s land is to be determined treating her land in rural area. Section 30 (2) of the Act of 2013 provides the first schedule in which the factor by which the market value is to be multiplied in rural areas has been given, which is 01. The Union of India in exercise of its power conferred by column no. 3 of serial no.2 of the first schedule R/w section 30 (2) of the act of 2013 which is notified on 09-02-2016 provided the multiplier factor of 2 for determination of compensation for rural areas. 85. After issuing the notice under section 9 of Act of 1894, passed the award on 22-12-2015 which is contrary to the provisions of the Act of 2013 and the Act of 1894 and the land acquisition officer has fixed the compensation of the land of the petitioner and therefore the present petition has been filed for the aforesaid relief. 81 WPC/ No.2517/2017 86. The petitioners are the title and possession holder of the land of various khasra numbers, total area 3.434 Hectare and 4.046 hectare, situated at village Nimora, Tahsil Abhanpur, District Raipur, the aforesaid land of the petitioners is to be acquired by the respondents. The respondent no. 3 has initiated the land acquisition proceeding for establishment and development of Naya Raipur through the respondent no. 5 which is the agency to establish and develop the Naya Raipur and named as Naya Raipur Development authority (in short NRDA). 87. The respondent no. 3 issued a notification under section 4 of the Act of 1894, for the acquisition of land of the petitioner and land acquisition case no. 12/A-82/ 2012-13 has been registered. The said notification was published in two daily newspapers, ‘Hari Bhoomi’ and ‘Nayi Dunia’ on 23-03-2013 and published in the official gazette on 29-03-2013. It is the case of the petitioner that the said notification is never published and affixed in the locality where the land is situated. It is also the case of the petitioner that the approval by the state government was granted in a different land acquisition proceeding, i.e.’ land acquisition case no. 11/A-82/2012-13. The said approval was also used in land acquisition case no. 12/A-82/2012-13 further the declaration under section 6 of the act of 1894 was published in the newspaper on 23-03-2014 and published in the official gazette on 21-03-2014 which also bears the land acquisition case no. 11/A-82/2012-13. 82 88. In the meantime the new act of 2013 came into force from 01-01-2014 and as per the provisions of new act of 2013, the declaration made under section 6 of the act of 1894 which is published after 01-01-2014 is void ab initio. As per the provisions of section 24 of Act of 2013, in cases where the land acquisition proceedings initiated under the Act of 1894, and the award has not been passed under section 11 of the said act, all the provisions of the Act of 2013 shall applied. Section 23 of the act of 2013 provides for inquiry and land acquisition award by the collector whereas section 24 of the act of 2013 contends the provisions regarding the applicability of the act of 2013 for determination of compensation as per the act of 2013 where no award has been passed under section 11 of the old act of 1894 in the proceeding initiated under the act of 1894. 89. It is also the case of the petitioner that the relevant date for determination of market value of the land for compensation is the date on which preliminary notification under section 4 of the act. Of 1894 or under section 11 of the act of 2013 is issued. The respondent no. 2 issued the notification on 30-01-2014 whereby declared certain revenue villages as urban area however the petitioners land was rural area when the notification under section 4 of the act of 1894 was issued and thus the compensation for the petitioner’s land is to be determined treating her land in rural area. Section 30 (2) of the Act of 2013 provides the first schedule in which the factor by which the market value is to be multiplied in rural areas has been given, which is 01. The Union of India in exercise of its power conferred by column no. 83 3 of serial no.2 of the first schedule R/w section 30 (2) of the act of 2013 which is notified on 09-02-2016 provided the multiplier factor of 2 for determination of compensation for rural areas. 90. After issuing the notice under section 9 of Act of 1894, passed the award on 22-12-2015 which is contrary to the provisions of the Act of 2013 and the Act of 1894 and the land acquisition officer has fixed the compensation of the land of the petitioner and therefore the present petition has been filed for the aforesaid relief. WPC No. 2520/2017 91. The petitioner is the title and possession holder of the land of khasra number 282 area 1.17 hectare and khasra no. 302 area 1.22 hectare, situated at village Navagaon, Tahsil Arang, District Raipur, the aforesaid land of the petitioners is to be acquired by the respondents. The respondent no. 3 has initiated the land acquisition proceeding for establishment and development of Naya Raipur through the respondent no. 5 which is the agency to establish and develop the Naya Raipur and named as Naya Raipur Development authority (in short NRDA). 92. The respondent no. 3 issued a notification under section 4 of the Act of 1894, for the acquisition of land of the petitioner and land acquisition case no. 11/A-82/ 2012-13 has been registered. The said notification was published in two daily newspapers, ‘Hari Bhoomi’ and ‘Nayi Dunia’ on 23-03-2013 and published in the official gazette on 29-03-2013. It is 84 the case of the petitioner that the said notification is never published and affixed in the locality where the land is situated. It is also the case of the petitioner that the approval by the state government was granted in a different land acquisition proceeding, i.e.’ land acquisition case no. 11/A-82/2012-13. The said approval was also used in land acquisition case no. 12/A-82/2012-13 further the declaration under section 6 of the act of 1894 was published in the newspaper on 23-03-2014 and published in the official gazette on 21-03-2014 which also bears the land acquisition case no. 11/A-82/2012-13. 93. In the meantime the new act of 2013 came into force from 01-01-2014 and as per the provisions of new act of 2013, the declaration made under section 6 of the act of 1894 which is published after 01-01-2014 is void ab initio. As per the provisions of section 24 of Act of 2013, in cases where the land acquisition proceedings initiated under the Act of 1894, and the award has not been passed under section 11 of the said act, all the provisions of the Act of 2013 shall applied. Section 23 of the act of 2013 provides for inquiry and land acquisition award by the collector whereas section 24 of the act of 2013 contends the provisions regarding the applicability of the act of 2013 for determination of compensation as per the act of 2013 where no award has been passed under section 11 of the old act of 1894 in the proceeding initiated under the act of 1894. 94. It is also the case of the petitioner that the relevant date for determination of market value of the land for compensation is the date 85 on which preliminary notification under section 4 of the act. Of 1894 or under section 11 of the act of 2013 is issued. The respondent no. 2 issued the notification on 30-01-2014 whereby declared certain revenue villages as urban areas however the petitioner’s land was rural area when the notification under section 4 of the act of 1894 was issued and thus the compensation for the petitioner’s land is to be determined treating her land in rural area. Section 30 (2) of the Act of 2013 provides the first schedule in which the factor by which the market value is to be multiplied in rural areas has been given, which is 01. The Union of India in exercise of its power conferred by column no. 3 of serial no.2 of the first schedule R/w section 30 (2) of the act of 2013 which is notified on 09-02-2016 provided the multiplier factor of 2 for determination of compensation for rural areas. 95. After issuing the notice under section 9 of Act of 1894, passed the award on 31-12-2015 which is contrary to the provisions of the Act of 2013 and the Act of 1894 and the land acquisition officer has fixed the compensation of the land of the petitioner and therefore the present petition has been filed for the aforesaid relief. 96. In all these three petitions the respondent state has filed its return, denying the claim of the petitioners and pleaded that the petitioner had challenged the land acquisition proceeding, which has already been finalised and merged into the final award dated 31-12-2015 and therefore, no relief can be granted to the petitioner. The petitioners have already accepted the compensation against the acquisition of the 86 land without any demur or protest. The impugned award was passed on 31-12-2015, whereas the present petition was filed in the year 2017, which suffers from delay and laches. It is also pleaded that there is a clear-cut statutory remedy available to the petitioners under section 64 of the Act of 2013 to make a reference to the District Collector if they are not satisfied with the award. The notification under section 4 of the Act of 1894 was published in the official gazette on 29-03-2013 and same was also published in widely circulated newspaper on 23-03-2013. The aforesaid notification was also published in the notice board of gram panchayat Nimora and Navagaon respectively. The objection raised by the petitioner have also been rejected on 01-03-2014 and 03-03-2014. Section 24 of the Act of 2013 clearly provides that where no award under section 11 of the Act of 1894 has been made then all the provisions of the act of 2013 relating to the determination of compensation shall apply. Wide notification dated 07-03-2015 the village Nimora and notification dated 30-01-2014, the village Navagaon have been declared as urban area however the determination of compensation has been done as per the provision of Act of 1894 as the proceeding of land acquisition had been completed at relevant point of time. It is also submitted that the petitioners have received the amount of compensation under the award. As per section 26 of the act of 2013 the collector is empowered to determine the market value of the land and as per section 30(2) of the Act of 2013 he shall issued the individual award detailing the particulars of the compensation payable to the land owners. Since the petitioners have already accepted the amount of compensation they 87 cannot subsequently challenge the aforesaid land acquisition proceedings. It is further submitted that section 24 (1) of the Act of 2013 clearly held that so far as the proceeding which has been initiated under the old act of 1894, the determination of the compensation would be done as per the provisions of the new act which has been followed by the respondents and the compensation of the petitioners land have been determined. Therefore there is no merits in the petitions and same are liable to be dismiss. 97. Learned Counsel for the respective petitioners would submit that the ward has not been passed within 2 years of publication of notice under section 4 of the old Act of 1894 and within 12 month from 01-01-2014. He would further submit that the issue has been settled by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of “Haryana State Industrial and Infrastructure Development Corporation Ltd. and others Vs. Deepak Agarwal and others”, reported in 2023 (6) SCC 512 and also by the Hon’ble Division Bench of the Court wide order dated 25-07-2024 passed in Writ Appeal No. 30 of 2019 in which it has been held that if the award has not been passed within 12 months the entire proceeding for acquisition of land shall lapsed. In the present case also the notification under section 4 of the old Act of 1894 was issued on 23-03-2013, the declaration under section 6 of the act of 1894 was issued in 23-03-2014 whereas award has been passed on 22-12-2015 which is is against the settled law and tby lapse of time the land acquisition proceeding shall lapse on its own. He would also submit that the petitioners are not against any public interest and if the 88 respondents are still in need of the land, they may initiate fresh proceeding of land acquisition for public purpose under the new Act of 2013 in accordance with law. 98. On the other hand learned for the respondents opposes and submitted that after following due process of law the award was passed with respect to compensation against land of the petitioners acquired for establishment and development of Naya Raipur. The petitioners have accepted the compensation and now they cannot challenged the land acquisition proceeding further the award was passed on 22-12-2015 and 31-12-2015 but the petition has been filed in the year 2017. The petitioners are having alternative remedy under section 64 of the new act of 2013 and thus they are not entitled for any relief in the present petition. However, they did not dispute the judgement passed by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Haryana State Industrial and Infrastructure Development Corporation Ltd. and others Vs. Deepak Agarwal and others (Supra) and Judgement passed by Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court in the matter of Naya Raipur Development Authority vs. Gaukaran and others (Supra). I have heard learned counsel for the parties perused the documents annexed with the writ petition and also gone through the judgement cited by the parties. 99. The core issue involved in these petitions are that whether the land acquisition proceeding initiated under the old act of 1894 and the award has not been passed within 12 months from enforcement of new Act of 2013, the entire proceeding of land acquisition shall lapse 89 on its own or not. The issue involved in the present case has already been sat at rest in the matter of Haryana State Industrial and Infrastructure Development Corporation Ltd. and others Vs. Deepak Agarwal and others (Supra) and the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held in para 24, 26, 27, 28, 47 of its judgement that:- “24. A careful scanning of all the decisions cited by both sides would thus reveal that all those decisions hold that land acquisition proceedings under the L.A. Act begin with the publication of a notification under sub-section (1) of Section 4. A declaration under Section 6 of the L.A. Act is one of the steps under the L.A. Act which ultimately culminates into the conclusion of the proceedings by making an Award and taking over possession of the acquired land. A declaration under Section 6 cannot be made without holding an inquiry unless urgency clause under Section 17 is applied. Publication of a notification under sub-section (1) of Section 4 of the L.A. Act is condition precedent for taking further steps. Hence, such a notification is the starting point of acquisition proceedings under the L.A. Act. 26. We are of the considered view that while construing the expression ‘initiated’ used in Section 24(1) of the 2013 Act with reference to commencement of acquisition proceedings under the L.A. Act, the decision in Ambica Quarry Works Vs. State of Gujarat [(1987) 1 SCC 213 is also to be borne in mind. In Ambica Quarry Works’ case while construing the 90 words ‘may be renewed’ this Court held that all interpretations must subserve and help implementation of the intention of the Act concerned. 27. The legislative intention behind bringing up the 2013 Act was to have a unified enactment facilitating land acquisition for industrialization, infrastructure and urbanization projects in a timely and transparent manner and at the same time, providing for just and fair compensation, to make adequate provision for rehabilitation and resettlement mechanism for affected persons and their families. As a preamble its objects and reasons have been given in the 2013 Act thus: “An Act to ensure, in consultation with institutions of local self-government and Gram Sabhas established under the Constitution, a humane, participative, informed and transparent process for land acquisition for industrialisation, development of essential infrastructural facilities and urbanisation with the least disturbance to the owners of the land and other affected families and provide just and fair compensation to the affected families whose land has been acquired or proposed to be acquired or are affected by such acquisition and make adequate provisions for such affected persons for their rehabilitation and resettlement and for ensuring that the cumulative outcome of compulsory acquisition should be that affected persons become partners in development leading to an improvement in 91 their post acquisition social and economic status and for matters connected therewith or incidental thereto.” 28. Bearing in mind the aforesaid legislative intention we will have to construe Section 24 and also the word ‘initiated’ employed in section 24(1), of the 2013 Act. The word ‘initiated’ has to be construed with a view to implement the aforesaid twin purposes of providing fair and just compensation and facilitating acquisition of land for industrialization, infrastructure and urbanization projects. We have already referred to the impact of ‘initiation’ of land acquisition proceedings and its culmination in an award under Section 11 of the L.A. Act and also non- culmination in such an award. 47. To conclude, we hold that for the purposes of sub- section (1) of Section 24 of the 2013 Act, the proceedings under the L.A. Act shall be treated as initiated on publication of a notification under sub- section (1) of Section 4 of the L.A. Act. We further hold that when Clause (a) of sub-section (1) of Section 24 of the 2013 Act is applicable, the proceedings shall continue as per the L.A. Act. However, only for the determination of compensation amount, the provisions of the 2013 Act shall be applied.” 100. Similarly relying upon the judgement passed by Hon’ble Supreme Court, Hon’ble Division Bench of the court has decided the Writ Appeal No. 30 of 2019 on 25-07-2014 (Naya Raipur Development Authority Vs. Gaukaran and others) and held that the land acquisition 92 proceeding initiated under the old act of 1894 shall lapse if the award has not been passed within 12 months. The similar situation in the present petitions also that notification under section 4 of the Act of 1894 was issued on 23-03-2013, the declaration under section 6 of the Act of 1894 was issued on 23-03-2014 whereas the award has been passed 22-12-2015 and 31-12-2015 respectively. In the meantime the new act of 2013 came into force w.e.f. 01-01-2014 and thus upto 31-12-2014, the award has to be passed by the land acquisition officer but the same has not been passed within the stipulated time and the land acquisition proceeding lapse after the period of of 12 month is over. Therefore the award dated 22-12-2015 and 31-12-2015 is Void ab initio and the same has been passed in the proceeding which has already been lapsed by the operation of law. 101. Therefore this court is of the opinion that these three petitions deserves to be allowed and the impugned award dated 22-12-2015 (W.P.C. No. 1944/ 2017, and W.P.C. No. 2517/2017) and 31-12-2015 (W.P.C. No. 2520/2017) are hereby quashed. 102. The respondents are at liberty to draw fresh proceeding of land acquisition of the land of the petitioners if they still requires any land for public purpose under the new Act of 2013 in accordance with law. In case, the respondents are not require the said land of the petitioners and if no proceeding of acquisition of their land is initiated, they can recover the amount of compensation which has already been paid to the respective petitioners along with the interest @ 7% per 93 annum from the date payment of compensation to them till its realization. Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) Judge ved