1 2025:CGHC:51692 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 5457 of 2025 1 - Sayyad Arif Sabri Son of Mother Husn Bano and Son of Father Saiyyad Sultan Aged About 31 Years 2 - Sayyad Nawab Sarif Son Of Mother Husn Bano And Son Of Father Saiyyad Sultan Sabri Aged About 29 Years. 3 - Sayyad Asrad Bano Daugher Of Mother Husn Bano And Daughter Of Father Saiyyad Sultan Sabri Aged About 27 Years. All are R/o Madhban Para, Ward No. 07, Raigarh, District Raigarh, Chhattisgarh (Serial No. 268 Of Compensation Chart Is Relevant Name Of Mother Is Mentioned And Since Mother Is Died Therefore Son And Daughter Are Filing Instant Petition Being A Legal Heirs). ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary Department Of Revenue Disaster Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhavan, Atal Nagar, New Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - Secretary Water Resource Department Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhavan, Atal Nagar, New Raipur, Chhattisgarh 3 - Collector Sakti, District Sakti, Chhattisgarh 4 - Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue) Cum Land Acquisition Officer Dabhara, District Sakti, Chhattisgarh 5 - Executive Engineer Water Resource Department (Kalma Bairaj) Raigarh Division Raigarh, Chhattisgarh ---- Respondents 2 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- For Petitioners : Dr. Sudeep Agrawal, Advocate. For Respondent-State : Mr. Anurag Tripathi, PL ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Hon'ble Shri Arvind Kumar Verma, Judge Order on Board 16.10.2025 1. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that pursuant to land acquisition proceeding initiated by the Competent Authority, respondent No.2 started construction of Kalma Barrage in the year 2011 after taking possession over the lands which are under the acquisition proceedings. Construction of the barrage was completed in the year 2016 and, thereafter, the industries have been permitted to take water from the said barrage from 01.04.2016 which is evident from Annexure P-3 i.e. (information supplied by the Sub Divisional Officer, Water Resources, Sub Division – Nandeli, Raigarh). He contended that land acquisition proceedings concluded by passing an award only on 22.11.2018. Some of the petitioners got the amount of compensation awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer in the year 2018 itself and some of them got the compensation in the year 2019. Land Acquisition Officer while calculating amount of compensation has only considered the award of compensation with respect to lands acquired by the Competent Authority vide Annexure P-1. Land Acquisition Officer has not considered the award of interest pursuant to Section 80 of the Right to Fair Compensation and 3 Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (for short “the Act ”). It is submitted that the provision under Section 80 of the Act provides for award of interest from the date of taking over the possession of land from the land owners. In support of his contention, he referred to order dated 03rd January 2022 passed by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Gayabai Digambar Puri (died) thr. LR Vs. The Executive Engineer & Ors. in SLP (Civil) No.17566 of 2020. He further submits that at this stage, he is not seeking any relief on merits of the case but is seeking a direction to the respondent No.4/Land Acquisition Officer to consider and decide the representations filed by the petitioners keeping in mind the provision of Section 80 of the Act and the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court. 2. Learned counsel for the State would submit that undisputedly the award has been passed in the year 2018 and petitioners have also received the amount of compensation calculated by Land Acquisition Officer and awarded in their favour. However, he submits that he is having no objection on the limited prayer made by learned counsel for the petitioners if their representations, if any, are directed to be decided in accordance with law. 3. I have heard learned counsel for the parties. 4. Grievance of the petitioner is that the petitioners' land was put to acquisition proceedings in the year 2011 and further that the possession of the land under acquisition has been taken over by 4 respondent No.2 in the year 2011. Information was supplied by the Sub Divisional Officer, Water Resources Sub Division, Nandeli, Raigarh mentioning that different industries, as per their agreements, are consuming water from Kalma Barrage since 01.04.2016 which is sufficient to show that the possession of the land has been taken prior to passing of award on 22.11.2018. Copy of calculation sheets of the compensation would show that amount of compensation is awarded with respect to the land only. Sub Divisional Officer has not considered the award of interest as provided under Section 80 of the Act. Petitioners have submitted representations vide Annexure P-2 before the Land Acquisition Officer-cum- Sub Divisional Officer (R) Dabra, District Sakti, which is pending consideration. 5. In view of the aforementioned facts of the case and further the limited relief sought for by the petitioners, no purpose would be served in keeping the writ petition pending in this Court and it will be in the interest of parties if petition itself is disposed of with a direction to respondent No.3 to consider and decide the representation of the petitioners at the earliest. 6. For the foregoing discussions, this writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the petitioners to file a fresh representation(s) along with relevant documents within a period of ‘3 weeks’ from today. In turn, respondent No.3 will consider and decide the representation(s) of the petitioners keeping in mind the provision of 5 Section 80 of the Act within a further period of ‘3 months’ from the date of receipt of representation(s) along with copy of the order passed by this Court, strictly in accordance with law. Sd/- Sd/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) Judge J/-