1 2025:CGHC:16758 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 1174 of 2014 1. Chaindas Patle S/o Shri Hakad Patle Aged About 60 Years R/o Village Palod, Patwari Halka No.21, Tah Arang, Distt Raipur, Cg, Chhattisgarh 2. Chabilal S/o Shri Govardhan Chandrakar (Died And Deleted) Through Lrs. As Per Honble Court Order Dated-14-11-2024. 2.1 - (A) Nonabai W/o Late Chhabilal, Aged About 75 Years R/o Village-Palod, Patwari Halka No.21, Tahsil-Arang, District-Raipur (C.G.) 2.2 - (B) Rajkumar S/o Late Chhabilal, Aged About 58 Years R/o Village-Palod, Patwari Halka No.21, Tahsil-Arang, District-Raipur (C.G.) 2.3 - (C) Domeshwar S/o Late Chhabilal, Aged About 56 Years R/o Village-Palod, Patwari Halka No.21, Tahsil-Arang, District-Raipur (C.G.) 2.4 - (D) Maneshwari D/o Late Chhabilal, Aged About 54 Years R/o Village-Palod, Patwari Halka No.21, Tahsil-Arang, District-Raipur (C.G.) 2.5 - (E) Premnarayan S/o Late Chhabilal, Aged About 44 Years R/o Village-Palod, Patwari Halka No.21, Tahsil-Arang, District-Raipur (C.G.) 3. Rajkumar Chandrakar S/o Shri Chabilal Aged About 50 Years R/o Village Palod, Patwari Halka No.21, Tah Arang, Distt Raipur, Cg, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 4. Nemichand S/o Shri Tijau Satnami Aged About 50 Years R/o Village Palod, Patwari Halka No.21, Tah Arang, Distt Raipur, Cg, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 5. Shesh Narayan S/o Shri Arjun Gendre Aged About 43 Years R/o Village Palod, Patwari Halka No.21, Tah Arang, Distt Raipur, Cg, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 6. Bedram S/o Shri Ram Prasad Aged About 44 Years R/o Village Palod, Patwari Halka No.21, Tah Arang, Distt Raipur, Cg, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh Digitally signed by RAMESH KUMAR VATTI 2 7. Brijlal S/o Derha Nai Aged About 68 Years R/o Village Palod, Patwari Halka No.21, Tah Arang, Distt Raipur, Cg, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 8. Pyare S/o Shri Harchand Satnami Aged About 48 Years R/o Village Palod, Patwari Halka No.21, Tah Arang, Distt Raipur, Cg, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 9. Pandey S/o Shri Ludgu Satnami Aged About 56 Years R/o Village Palod, Patwari Halka No.21, Tah Arang, Distt Raipur, Cg, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 10. Kritlal S/o Ram Prasad Aged About 38 Years R/o Village Palod, Patwari Halka No.21, Tah Arang, Distt Raipur, Cg, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 11. Rajkumar S/o Ram Pratap Aged About 34 Years R/o Village Palod, Patwari Halka No.21, Tah Arang, Distt Raipur, Cg, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 12. Ramkhilavan S/o Samaru Aged About 35 Years R/o Village Palod, Patwari Halka No.21, Tah Arang, Distt Raipur, Cg, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 13. Jagmohan Nirmalkar S/o Lt Bhukhan Aged About 58 Years R/o Village Palod, Patwari Halka No.21, Tah Arang, Distt Raipur, Cg, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 14. Tosh Narayan @ Anand Kumar S/o Shri Mehataru Chandrakar Aged About 58 Years R/o Village Palod, Patwari Halka No.21, Tah Arang, Distt Raipur, Cg, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 15. Thanu S/o Shri Sukhau Aged About 70 Years R/o Village Palod, Patwari Halka No.21, Tah Arang, Distt Raipur, Cg, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh --- Petitioners Versus 1. State Of Chhattisgarh S/o Through Secretary, Department Of Housing And Environment, Mantralaya, Naya Raipur, Dist Raipur, Cg, Chhattisgarh 2. Department Of Agriculture And Animal Husbandry Through Secretary, Mantralaya, Naya Raipur, Dist Raipur, Cg, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 3. District Collector Collectorate, Raipur, Distt Raipur, Cg, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 4. Naya Raipur Development Authority Through Its Chief Executive Officer, New Rajendra Nagar, Infront Of Vijeta Complex, R.D.A. Building, Raipur, Dist Raipur, Cg, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 5. Land Acquisition Officer/ Sub Divisional Officer, Tah Aarang Abhanpur, Civil And Revenue Distt Raipur, Cg, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh --- Respondents And WPC No. 1460 of 2014 1. G.Venkat Reddy S/o Lt G.Sora Reddy Aged About 50 Years R/o Rajkumar College Ward, Mukut Nagar, Near Water Tank, Raipur, Dist Raipur, Cg, Chhattisgarh (Died And Deleted) Through Lrs. As Per Honble Court Order Dated-14-11-2024 3 1(A) Vaibhav Reddy Goluguri, S/o G. Venkat Reddy, aged about 37 years, R/o Mukut Nagar, Near Water Tank, Post Sunder Nagar, Raipur District Raipur (C.G.) 1(B) Valli Shri Gowri Goluguri, W/o Late G. Venkat Reddy, aged near about 58 years, R/o Mukut Nagar, Near Water Tank, Post Sundar Nagar Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) 2. G. Ramalaxmi Reddy W/o Shri G.Venkat Reddy Aged About 48 Years R/o Rajkumar College Ward, Mukut Nagar, Near Water Tank, Raipur, Dist Raipur, Cg, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 3. G. Veman Rama Reddy S/o Lt G.Sora Reddy Aged About 56 Years R/o Rajkumar College Ward, Mukut Nagar, Near Water Tank, Raipur, Dist Raipur, Cg, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 4. Smt. G.Valli Shri Gouri W/o Shri G.Venkat Reddy R/o Rajkumar College Ward, Mukut Nagar, Near Water Tank, Raipur, Dist Raipur, Cg ---Petitioners Versus 1. State Of Chhattisgarh S/o Through Secretary, Department Of Housing And Environment, Mantralaya, Naya Raipur, Dist Raipur, Cg, Chhattisgarh 2. Department Of Agriculture And Animal Husbandary, Through Secretary, Mantralaya, Naya Raipur, Dist Raipur, Cg, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 3. District Collector Collectorate, Raipur, Dist Raipur, Cg, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 4. Naya Raipur Develoment Authority Through Its Chief Executive Officer, New Rajendra Nagar, Infront Of Vijeta Complex, R.D.A. Building Raipur, Dist Raipur, Cg, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 5. Land Acquistion Officer/ Sub Divisional Officer, Tahsil Aarang- Abhanpur, Civil And Revenue Distt Raipur, Cg, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 6. Commissioner Raipur, Dist Raipur, Cg, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh --- Respondents And WPC No. 1164 of 2014 1. Jagmohan Chandrakar (Died) Through Lrs.- (As Per Hon'ble Court Order Dated 14-11-2024) 1.1 - (A) Ram Bai W/o Late Jagmohan Chandrakar Aged About 75 Years R/o Village Palod, Patwari Halka No.21, Tahsil- Arang, Distt. Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 1.2 - (B) Chakrapani S/o Late Jagmohan Chandrakar Aged About 57 Years R/o Village Palod, Patwari Halka No.21, Tahsil- Arang, Distt. Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 1.3 - (C) Ramcharan S/o Late Jagmohan Chandrakar Aged About 45 Years R/o Village Palod, Patwari Halka No.21, Tahsil- Arang, Distt. Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 4 1.4 - (D) Yashoda D/o Late Jagmohan Chandrakar Aged About 55 Years R/o Village Palod, Patwari Halka No.21, Tahsil- Arang, Distt. Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 1.5 - (E) Ishwari D/o Late Jagmohan Chandrakar Aged About 49 Years R/o Village Palod, Patwari Halka No.21, Tahsil- Arang, Distt. Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 1.6 - (F) Revti D/o Late Jagmohan Chandrakar Aged About 47 Years R/o Village Palod, Patwari Halka No.21, Tahsil- Arang, Distt. Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 1.7 - (G) Bimla D/o Late Jagmohan Chandrakar Aged About 45 Years R/o Village Palod, Patwari Halka No.21, Tahsil- Arang, Distt. Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 1.8 - (H) Lakshmi D/o Late Jagmohan Chandrakar Aged About 35 Years R/o Village Palod, Patwari Halka No.21, Tahsil- Arang, Distt. Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 1.9 - (I) Anita D/o Late Jagmohan Chandrakar Aged About 30 Years R/o Village Palod, Patwari Halka No.21, Tahsil- Arang, Distt. Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 2. Tanwar Baghel S/o Ram Chandrakar Aged About 42 Years R/o Village Palod, Patwari Halka No.21, Tah Arang, Distt Raipur, C G, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 3. Hiralal Baghel S/o Laxman Baghel Aged About 36 Years R/o Village Palod, Patwari Halka No.21, Tah Arang, Distt Raipur, C G, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 4. Gopal Yadav S/o Govardhan Yadav Aged About 36 Years R/o Village Palod, Patwari Halka No.21, Tah Arang, Distt Raipur, C G, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 5. Radheshyam Yadav S/o Derhu Yadav Aged About 40 Years R/o Village Palod, Patwari Halka No.21, Tah Arang, Distt Raipur, C G, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 6. Lalbahadur Chelak S/o Dwarika Chelak Aged About 33 Years R/o Village Palod, Patwari Halka No.21, Tah Arang, Distt Raipur, C G, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 7. Omprakash Chandrakar S/o Shri Purani Aged About 43 Years R/o Village Palod, Patwari Halka No.21, Tah Arang, Distt Raipur, C G, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 8. Jadram Sahu S/o Shri Khorbahara Aged About 52 Years R/o Village Palod, Patwari Halka No.21, Tah Arang, Distt Raipur, C G, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 9. Lakhanlal S/o Basawan Aged About 58 Years R/o Village Palod, Patwari Halka No.21, Tah Arang, Distt Raipur, C G, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 10. Yadram S/o Shri Jagdish Aged About 41 Years R/o Village Palod, Patwari Halka No.21, Tah Arang, Distt Raipur, C G, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 11. Gopal Sahu S/o Shri Fagua Sahu Aged About 55 Years R/o Village Palod, Patwari Halka No.21, Tah Arang, Distt Raipur, C G, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 12. Dwarika Dewangan S/o Lt Roopelal Aged About 56 Years R/o Village Palod, Patwari Halka No.21, Tah Arang, Distt Raipur, C G, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 5 13. Maharin W/o Lt Roopelal Aged About 75 Years R/o Village Palod, Patwari Halka No.21, Tah Arang, Distt Raipur, C G, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 14. Derharam Dewangan S/o Lt Roopelal Aged About 58 Years R/o Village Palod, Patwari Halka No.21, Tah Arang, Distt Raipur, C G, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 15. Hem Kumar S/o Shri Derharam Aged About 35 Years R/o Village Palod, Patwari Halka No.21, Tah Arang, Distt Raipur, C G, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 16. Narendra Kumar Banjare S/o Shri Hiralal Aged About 34 Years R/o Village Palod, Patwari Halka No.21, Tah Arang, Distt Raipur, C G, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 17. Kartik Ram Patel S/o Shri Gyan Marar Aged About 56 Years R/o Village Palod, Patwari Halka No.21, Tah Arang, Distt Raipur, C G, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 18. Santosh Kumar Chelak S/o Shri Dwarika Aged About 36 Years R/o Village Palod, Patwari Halka No.21, Tah Arang, Distt Raipur, C G, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 19. Sukhbati W/o Shri Kejuram Aged About 70 Years R/o Village Palod, Patwari Halka No.21, Tah Arang, Distt Raipur, C G, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 20. Pyari Patel (Died) Through Lrs.- (As Per Hon'ble Court Order Dated 14-11-2024) 20.1 - (A) Ghanshyam S/o Late Pyari Patel Aged About 60 Years R/o Village Palod, Patwari Halka No.21, Tahsil- Arang, Distt. Raipur, Chhattisgarh 20.2 - (B) Rohit S/o Late Pyari Patel Aged About 55 Years R/o Village Palod, Patwari Halka No.21, Tahsil- Arang, Distt. Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 20.3 - (C) Ramkumar S/o Late Pyari Patel Aged About 50 Years R/o Village Palod, Patwari Halka No.21, Tahsil- Arang, Distt. Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 20.4 - (D) Bhukhan S/o Late Pyari Patel Aged About 45 Years R/o Village Palod, Patwari Halka No.21, Tahsil- Arang, Distt. Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 21. Sadhuram Patel S/o Manbodhi Aged About 36 Years R/o Village Palod, Patwari Halka No.21, Tah Arang, Distt Raipur, C G, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 22. Kodu S/o Shri Harchand Satnami Aged About 60 Years R/o Village Palod, Patwari Halka No.21, Tah Arang, Distt Raipur, C G, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 23. Subelal @ Chabilal Banjare S/o Shri Khorbahara Aged About 65 Years R/o Village Palod, Patwari Halka No.21, Tah Arang, Distt Raipur, C G, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 24. Tiharu Yadav S/o Shri Khorbahara Aged About 50 Years R/o Village Palod, Patwari Halka No.21, Tah Arang, Distt Raipur, C G, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 25. Lilesh Dewangan S/o Shri Bhagwani Kosta Aged About 34 Years R/o Village Palod, Patwari Halka No.21, Tah Arang, Distt Raipur, C G, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 26. Budha Bai W/o Sukhchand Satnami Aged About 70 Years R/o Village Palod, Patwari Halka No.21, Tah Arang, Distt Raipur, C G, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 6 27. Ravi @ Ravindra S/o Shri Anjorilal Aged About 32 Years R/o Village Palod, Patwari Halka No.21, Tah Arang, Distt Raipur, C G, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 28. Ashsih Ratre S/o Shri Khorbahara Aged About 58 Years R/o Village Palod, Patwari Halka No.21, Tah Arang, Distt Raipur, C G, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 29. Ram Gulam Chandrakar S/o Shri Sitaram Aged About 80 Years R/o Village Palod, Patwari Halka No.21, Tah Arang, Distt Raipur, C G, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 30. Ramadhar Chandrakar S/o Shri Dayaram Aged About 58 Years R/o Village Palod, Patwari Halka No.21, Tah Arang, Distt Raipur, C G, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh ---Petitioners Versus 1. State Of Chhattisgarh S/o Through Secretary, Department Of Housing And Environment, Mantralaya, Naya Raipur, Dist Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2. Department Of Agriculture And Animal Husbandry, Through Secretary, Mantralaya, Naya Raipur, Dist Raipur, C G, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 3. District Collector Collectorate, Raipur, Dist Raipur, C G, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 4. Naya Raipur Development Authority Through Its Chief Executive Officer, New Rajendra Nagar, Infront Of Vijeta Complex, R.D.A. Building, Raipur, Distt Raipur, C G, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 5. Land Acquisition Officer/sub Divisional Officer, Tahsil Aarang- Abhanpur, Civil And Revenue Distt Raipur, Cg, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh --- Respondents (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) For Petitioners : Mr. Sanjay Kumar Agrawal, Advocate For State For NRDA : : Mr. R.S. Marhas, Additional Advocate General Mr. Sumesh Bajaj, Advocate Hon’ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 09/04/2025 1. In these petitions, the petitioners have challenged the entire land acquisition proceedings, the notification issued under Sections 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short 'Act 1894') and the award. The petitioners have further sought direction to the respondent 7 authorities to constitute a Committee under Section 17-A of the CG Nagar Tatha Gram Nivesh Adhiniyam, 1973 (for short 'Adhiniyam 1973) and to decide the objections. The petitioners are residents of Village Palod, Tehsil Aarang, District Raipur and Village Bendri, Tehsil Abhanpur, District Raipur. On 03.01.2002 and 15.01.2002, the Department of Housing and Environment, Government of Chhattisgarh issued orders for the acquisition of land for the development of Naya Raipur. On 25.08.2005 another order was issued and the transfer of lands of 07 villages including villages Palod & Bendri was restricted. Vide modified order dated 31.07.2006, the restriction was lifted for the transfer of lands in favour of NRDA. At the request of the NRDA, the Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue), Aarang/Abhanpur registered the land acquisition cases on 15.09.2011. The land acquisition proceedings were proceeded by the Land Acquisition Officer in Land Acquisition Case No. 42/A-82 Year 2010-2011 – Village Palod, Patwari Halka No. 21, Tahsil Aarang (WPC No. 1174/2014); Land Acquisition Case No. 51/A-82 Year 2010-2011 – Village Bendri, Patwari Halka no. 18, Tahsil Abhanpur (WPC No. 1460/2014) and Land Acquisition Case No. 42/A-82 Year 2010-2011 – Village Palod, Patwari Halka No. 21, Tahsil Aarang (WPC No 1164/2014). The details are reproduced herein below:- WPC No. 1174 of 2014 Chaindas Patle & Ors. Vs. State of Chhhattisgarh & Ors. Sr. Dates Events 1 19.09.2011 Notification u/s 4 of the Land Acquisition Act (Annexure P/2) 2 21.09.2011 Notification u/s 4 published in two daily newspapers namely, Nayi Duniya and Hari 8 Bhoomi. (Referred to in Annexure P/6) 3 27.06.2012 Objection u/s 5A decided by the Competent Authority. (Referred to in Annexure P/6) 4 06.07.2012 Notification/Declaration issued u/s 6 of the Land Acquisition Act (Annexure P/7) 5 01.06.2013 Final Award passed under the Land Acquisition Act (Annexure P/8) 6 22.06.2014 The instant writ petition filed. WPC No. 1164 of 2014 Jagmohan Chandrakar & Ors. Vs. State of Chhhattisgarh & Ors. Sr. Dates Events 1 19.09.2011 Notification u/s 4 of the Land Acquisition Act (Annexure P/2) 2 21.09.2011 Notification u/s 4 published in two daily newspapers namely, Nayi Duniya and Hari Bhoomi. (Referred to in Annexure P/5) 3 27.06.2012 Objection u/s 5A decided by Competent Authority. (Referred to in Annexure P/5) 4 06.07.2012 Notification/Declaration issued u/s 6 of the Land Acquisition Act (Annexure P/6) 5 01.06.2013 Final Award passed under the Land Acquisition Act (Annexure P/7) 6 23.06.2014 The instant writ petition filed. WPC No. 1460 of 2014 G. Venkat Reddy & Ors. Vs. State of Chhhattisgarh & Ors. Sr. Dates Events 1 29.10.2011 Notification u/s 4 published in two daily newspapers namely, Dainik Bhaskar and Hari Bhoomi. (Referred to in Annexure P/3) 2 19.07.2012 Objection u/s 5A decided by Competent Authority. (Kindly refer Para 8.10 of the petition) 3 24.07.2012 Notification/Declaration issued u/s 6 of the 9 Land Acquisition Act and published in newspapers on 25.07.2012 (Annexure P/4) 4 29.05.2013 Final Award passed under the Land Acquisition Act (Annexure P/6) 5 30.07.2014 The instant writ petition filed. From the above chart, it is apparent that final awards were passed by the Land Acquisition Officer in the month of May & June, 2013, whereas these petitions were filed in the month of June & July, 2014. 2. Mr. Sanjay Kumar Agrawal, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would argue that Naya Raipur Development Plan was illegally notified without constituting a Committee according to the provisions of Section 17A of the Adhiniyam 1973. He would submit that objections were also not heard and decided. He would contend that in the Notification issued under Section 4A of the Act, 1894, the purpose for the acquisition was not assigned. He would further submit that the objections raised by the petitioners were considered and decided by the Sub Divisional Officer-Cum-Land Acquisition Officer, who was not competent as the competent authority is the District Collector and in this regard, he placed reliance on the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Kamal Trading Private Limited (Now Known as Manav Investment and Trading Company Limited) Vs. State of West Bengal and Others reported in 2012 (2) SCC 25. He would further contend that the Notification issued under Section 4 of the Act, 1894 was not affixed at a conspicuous place at the Gram Panchayat Office and the petitioners were not informed through the beating of the drum. He would further argue that the objections raised 10 by the petitioners under Section 5A of the Act, 1894 were rejected without application of mind. He would also submit that the Sub Divisional Officer was not competent to reject their objections and in this regard, he referred to Section 5A of the Act, 1894. He would also argue that the lands have been acquired by the Private Company, therefore, the acquisition is bad-in-law. In support of his arguments, he placed reliance on the judgments passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matters of Madhya Pradesh Housing Board Vs. Mohd. Shafi and Others reported in (1992) 2 SCC 168; Kulsum R. Nadiadwala Vs. State of Maharashtra and Others reported in (2012) 6 SCC 348; J & K Housing Board and Another Vs. Kunwar Sanjay Krishan Kaul and Others reported in (2011) 10 SCC 714; Union of India and Others Vs. Gopaldas Bhagwan Das and Others reported in (2023) 12 SCC 531; Munshi Singh and Others Vs. Union of India reported in (1973) 2 SCC 337 and Urban Improvement Trust Vs. Vidya Devi and Others reported in 2024 SCC Online SC 3725. 3. On the other hand, Mr. Sumesh Bajaj, learned counsel appearing for the NRDA would submit that earlier a writ petition was filed for the quashment of the Notification issued under Sections 4 and 6 of the Act, 1894 and relief was also sought for the reconstitution of the appropriate Committee under Section 17A of the Adhiniyam, 1973. He would contend that the petitioners in the present petitions are members of the petitioners'-Samiti in WPC No. 6782/2011. He would contend that the several petitioners willingly sold their property by mutual consent and accepted the compensation. He would further contend that the lands have been acquired for the construction of New Capital. He would also contend that 16 petitioners had preferred their 11 statutory objections under Section 5A of the Act 1894 and those objections were decided by the Competent Authority. He would further argue that at the time of preparation of the development plan of Naya Raipur under the provisions of the Adhiniyam, 1973, only 02 petitioners raised their objection. He would further state that private individuals have to give way to the public interests for the implementation of the Development Plan. He would also state that after a lapse of 13 years from the date of the award, things have become irreversible and the only right available to the petitioners would be for compensation, which has already been deposited with the Land Acquisition Officer. He would also argue submit that with regard to enhancement of compensation or interest part, the petitioners have the remedy to approach the appropriate authority according to the provisions of Sections 64 and 65 of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013. He would also contend that the power under Section 5A of the Act 1894 has been conferred with the Sub Divisional Officer. He would also submit that the Sub Divisional Officer was the Competent Authority to act and discharge functions of the Land Acquisition Officer according to a Notification dated 15.02.1999 issued by the erstwhile State of Madhya Pradesh and this Notification has been adopted by the State of Chhattisgarh vide Notification dated 03.12.2009. He would further submit that objections raised by the petitioners were decided by the Land Acquisition Officer/Sub Divisional Officer in an objective manner. He would further contend that the provisions of Section 4(1) of the Act, 1894 were duly complied with by the Land Acquisition Officer. He would submit that the Notification 12 under Section 4 of the Act 1894 was published on 19.09.2011. The Notification was published in two daily newspapers namely Nayi Duniya and Hari Bhoomi on 21.09.2011. The objections under Section 5A of the Act, 1894 were invited and decided by the Competent Authority on 27.06.2012 and thereafter, a Notification under Section 6 of the Act 1894 was published on 06.07.2012. He would also submit that the petitioners failed to produce documents to demonstrate that the Notification was not affixed in a conspicuous place of Gram Panchayat and the petitioners were not informed properly through the beating of the drum. He would contend that the objections raised by the petitioners before the Competent Authority make it clear that they were aware of the Notification issued under Section 4 of the Act, 1894. He would further submit that the final awards were passed by the Land Acquisition Officer on 01.06.2013 and 29.05.2013 and some of the petitioners accepted the compensation. He would also submit that these petitions deserve to be dismissed. In support of his arguments, he placed reliance on the judgment passed by this Court in WPC No. 1489 of 2012 parties being Shiv Balak Mishra & Another Vs. State of Chhattisgarh & Others, dated 20.01.2025 and WPC No. 358 of 2016 parties being Purshottam Ahuja Vs. State of Chhattisgarh & Others and other connected matters, dated 18.07.2016 passed by the coordinate bench of this Court. 4. Mr. R.S. Marhas, learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the State would support the contention made by Mr. Sumesh Bajaj. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents placed on the record. 6. Mr. Sanjay Kumar Agrawal, learned counsel appearing for the 13 petitioners has argued that the Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue) was not competent to act as the Land Acquisition Officer and only the District Collector was competent. It is also argued that the Land Acquisition proceedings were drawn by the Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue), Aarang/Abhanppur and the Collector Raipur only put his signature. It is also contended that the Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue) Aarang/Abhanpur was not competent to decide the objections raised under Section 5A of the Act, 1894. The State, in its return, have categorically stated vide Notification dated 15.02.1999 issued by the erstwhile State of Madhya Pradesh the power was conferred on the Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue) to discharge functions of the Land Acquisition Officer. It is also stated that the Notification dated 15.02.1999 has been adopted by the State of Chhattisgarh vide Notification dated 03.12.2009. 7. A perusal of the note sheet and pleadings would make it clear that Notifications have been issued by the erstwhile State of Madhya Pradesh and State of Chhattisgarh whereby the power of the Land Acquisition Officer has been conferred with the Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue) and those notifications have not been challenged by the petitioners in these petitions. Therefore, the contention made by learned counsel for the petitioners appears to be misconceived. 8. Vide Notification dated 15.02.1999 and 03.12.2009 the power has been conferred with the Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue) to decide the objection under Section 5A of the Act, 1894 raised by the land oustees. The Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue) Aarang/Abhanpur have exercised the power under Sections 4, 5 and 6 of the Act, 1894 according to the above-stated notifications, therefore, it can safely be 14 held that the Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue), Aarang/Abhanpur rightly decided the objections filed under Section 5A of the Act, 1894. 9. It is also argued by Mr. Sanjay Kumar Agrawal that the Notification under Section 4 (1) of the Act, 1894 was issued by the Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue) and the then Collector, Raipur put his signature in a mechanical manner without application of mind. Section 4 (1) of the Act, 1894 states that whenever it appears to the appropriate Government that 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. As already held the power was conferred with the Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue) to discharge functions of the Land Acquisition Officer which includes the right to publish the notification under Section 4(1) of the Act, 1894. The notification under Section 4 of the Act, 1894 was published in 02 daily newspapers. Copy of the notification was affixed to the Notice Board of the respective Gram Panchayats. The land oustees were duly informed in this regard and this fact is evident from objections raised under Section 5A of the Act, 1894 by the villagers. The Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue) also decided the objections raised by the land oustees and thus, the contention made by Mr. Sanjay Kumar Agrawal is not sustainable. Mr. Sanjay Kumar Agrawal has placed reliance on the judgments passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Mohd. Shafi (supra); Kulsum R. Nadiadwala (supra); Kunwar Sanjay Krishan Kaul (supra) and Gopaldas Bhagwan Das (supra), wherein it is held that the publicity of Section 4 notice is a mandatory requirement. If a notification u/s 4 is defective and does not comply 15 with the requirements of the Act, it vitiates the notification and renders all subsequent proceedings connected with the acquisition bad in law. The relevant para-8 of the case of Mohd. Shafi (supra) is reproduced herein below:- “8. It is settled law that the process of acquisition has to start with a notification issued under Section 4 of the Act, which is mandatory, and even in cases of urgency, the issuance of notification under Section 4 is a condition precedent to the exercise of any further powers under the Act. Any notification which is aimed at depriving a man of his property, issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act has to be strictly construed and any serious lapse on the part of the acquiring authority would vitiate the proceedings and cannot be ignored by the courts. The object of issuing a notification under Section 4 of the Act is twofold. First, it is a public announcement by the government and a public notice by the Collector to the effect that the land, as specified therein, is needed or is likely to be needed by the government for the “public purpose” mentioned therein; and secondly, it authorises the departmental officers or officers of the local authority, as the case may be to do all such acts as are mentioned in Section 4(2) of the Act. The notification has to be published in the locality and particularly persons likely to be affected by the proposal have to be put on notice that such an activity is afoot. The notification is, thus, required to give with sufficient clarity not only the “public purpose” for which the acquisition proceedings are being commenced but also the “locality” where the land is situate with as full a description as possible of the land proposed to be acquired to enable the “interested” persons to know as to which land is being acquired and for what purpose and to take further steps under the Act by filing objections etc., since it is open to such persons to canvass the non-suitability of the land for the alleged “public purpose” also. If a notification under Section 4(1) of the Act is defective and does not comply with the requirements of the Act, it not only vitiates the notification, but also renders all subsequent proceedings connected with the acquisition, bad.” 10. In the present case, notifications were issued under Section 4 (1) of the Act, 1894; notifications were published in 02 daily Hindi 16 newspapers; notifications were affixed in the Notice Board of the respective Gram Panchayats; notifications were published in the Official Gazette too and villagers were also informed and thus, there was strict compliance of provisions of Section 4 of the Act, 1894. 11. Mr. Sanjay Kumar Agrawal has further argued that a ban was put on the sale and purchase of lands in the Naya Raipur area including village Palod since 2005 and it materially affected the petitioners. The ban was put by the State authorities to avoid a multiplicity of litigation and illegal transactions. The compensation was calculated according to the current market rate, therefore, the ground raised by Mr. Sanjay Kumar Agrawal is hereby rejected. 12. It is argued by Mr. Sanjay Kumar Agrawal that a specific purpose for the acquisition of lands was not mentioned in the notification issued under Section 4 (1) and Section 6(1) of the Act, 1894. In this regard he placed reliance on the matter of Munshi Singh (supra), where it is held that if the public purpose stated in Section 4(1) of the Act, 1894 notification is not clearly mentioned, it would vitiate the land acquisition. 13. A perusal of the notification issued under Section 4 of the Act, 1894 would show that the public purpose was clearly disclosed in notifications and lands were acquired for the construction of a new Capital of the State of Chhattisgarh. It is also evident from the record that after the issuance of the notification under section 4 of the Act, 1894 a writ petition was filed for quashment of the notification issued under Sections 4 and 6 of the Act, 1894 and relief was sought for re- constitution of the appropriate Committee under Section 17A of the Adhiniyam, 1973. Accordingly, the Committee was constituted and 17 objections were decided. 14. In the present case, awards were passed by the Land Acquisition Officer dated 01.06.2013 and 29.05.2013. Some of the petitioners have already accepted the amount of compensation. The petitions were filed by the petitioners on 22.06.2014 (WPC No 1174/2014), 23.06.2014 (WPC No. 1164/2014) and 30.07.2014 (WPC No. 1460/2014) challenging the land acquisition proceedings and the award. 15. Learned counsel for the petitioners also argued that proper compensation had not been paid. It appears that on one hand the petitioners are challenging the land acquisition proceedings including the award and on the other hand, they are seeking enhancement of compensation. It is a well settled principle of law that the party cannot approbate and reprobate at the same time. For enhancement of compensation, the petitioners have an efficacious statutory remedy. 16. Taking into consideration the above-discussed facts, in the opinion of this Court, no case is made for interference. 17. Consequently, these petitions fail and are hereby dismissed. No costs. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge vatti