1 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 1440 of 2015 1 - Dhananjay (Dead) Through Legal Heirs As Per Honble Court Order Dated 16-09-2019. 1(A) Savitri Devi Wd/o Late Dhananjay Aged About 67 Years R/o Village Mahapalli, Post Loing, P.S. Chakradhar Nagar, Tahsil And District Raigarh (C.G.) 1(B) Pramod Gupta S/o Late Dhananjay Aged About 44 Years R/o Village Mahapalli, Post Loing, P.S. Chakradhar Nagar, Tahsil And District Raigarh (C.G.) 1(C) Savita Barik D/o Late Dhananjay Aged About 48 Years R/o Village Kantapali, Post Lakhanpur, Tahsil Lakhanpur, District Jharsuguda (Odisha) 2 - Daitari (Died And Deleted) Through Lrs. As Per Honble Court Order Dated 02-01-2024. As Per Honble Court Order Dated 02-01-2024. 2(A) Shurubali Gupta Wd/o Late Daitari Gupta Aged About 73 Years R/o Village Mahapalli, Post Loing, P.S. Chakradhar Nagar, Tahsil And District Raigarh (C.G.) 2(B) Devendra Kumar Gupta S/o Late Daitari Gupta Aged About 53 Years R/o Village Mahapalli, Post Loing, P.S. Chakradhar Nagar, Tahsil And District Raigarh (C.G.) 2(C) Sushma Sahu W/o Ramakant Sahu Aged About 55 Years R/o Village Banora, Tahsil And District Raigarh (C.G.) 2(D) Sudha Gupta W/o Dhwajaram Gupta Aged About 48 Years R/o Village Gudgahan, Post Garhumariya, Raigarh, Tahsil And District Raigarh (C.G.) 2(E) Suchitra Gupta W/o Shwet Kumar Gupta Aged About 38 Years Village Karra, Tahsil Tamnar, District Raigarh (C.G.) 3 - Dashrath S/o Chaitan Aged About 72 Years R/o Mahapalli, Post Loing, P. S. Chakradhar Nagar- Raigarh, Tahsil And District Raigarh Chhattisgarh VED PRAKASH DEWANGAN Digitally signed by VED PRAKASH DEWANGAN Date: 2026.01.20 21:20:22 +0530 2 4 - Parshu S/o Chaitan Aged About 62 Years R/o Mahapalli, Post Loing, P. S. Chakradhar Nagar- Raigarh, Tahsil And District Raigarh Chhattisgarh 5 - Sarojani Wd/o Babulal Aged About 54 Years R/o Mahapalli, Post Loing, P. S. Chakradhar Nagar- Raigarh, Tahsil And District Raigarh Chhattisgarh 6 - Laxmi D/o Babulal Aged About 27 Years R/o Mahapalli, Post Loing, P. S. Chakradhar Nagar- Raigarh, Tahsil And District Raigarh Chhattisgarh 7 - Radha D/o Babulal Aged About 25 Years R/o Mahapalli, Post Loing, P. S. Chakradhar Nagar- Raigarh, Tahsil And District Raigarh Chhattisgarh, District : Raigarh, Chhattisgarh 8 - Anusuiya D/o Babulal Aged About 21 Years R/o Mahapalli, Post Loing, P. S. Chakradhar Nagar- Raigarh, Tahsil And District Raigarh Chhattisgarh 9 - Akash Minor S/o Babulal Aged About 15 Years Being Minor Through Represented Mother Sarojani Wd/o Babulal, R/o Mahapalli, Post Loing, P. S. Chakradhar Nagar- Raigarh, Tahsil And District Raigarh Chhattisgarh 10 - Anupriya Minor D/o Babulal Aged About 17 Years Being Minor Through Represented Mother Sarojani Wd/o Babulal, R/o Mahapalli, Post Loing, P. S. Chakradhar Nagar- Raigarh, Tahsil And District Raigarh Chhattisgarh 11 - Mahendra Kumar (Now Dead) Through Legal Heirs 11(A) Prashant Gupta S/o Late Mahendra Kumar Gupta Aged About 34 Years R/o Mahapali, Post Loing, P.S. Chakradhar Nagar Raigarh, Tahsil And District Raigarh (Chhattisgarh) 11(B) Shrikant Gupta S/o Late Mahendra Kumar Gupta Aged About 30 Years R/o Mahapali, Post Loing, P.S. Chakradhar Nagar Raigarh, Tahsil And District Raigarh (Chhattisgarh) 11(C) - (Deleted) Smt. Gayatri As Per Honble Court Order Dated 02-11- 2023. 12 - Krishnalal S/o Vidyadhar Aged About 58 Years R/o Mahapalli, Post Loing, P. S. Chakradhar Nagar- Raigarh, Tahsil And District Raigarh Chhattisgarh 13 - Khemchand S/o Rupram (Now Dead) Through Legal Heirs - 13(A) - Anil Kumar Gupta S/o Late Shri Khemchand Gupta Aged About 53 Years R/o Mahapalli, Post Loing, P. S. Chakradhar Nagar- Raigarh, Tahsil And District Raigarh Chhattisgarh 13(B) - Ajay Kumar Gupta (Deleted) As Per Honble Court Order Dated 16- 09-2019. 13 (B-1) - Lata Gupta, Wd/o Late Ajay Kumar Gupta, Aged About 46 Years R/o Village Mahapalli, Post Loing, P.S. Chakradhar Nagar, Tahsil And District Raigarh (C.G.) 3 13(B-2) - Ku. Shruti Gupta, D/o Late Ajay Kumar Gupta, Aged About 19 Years R/o Village Mahapalli, Post Loing, P.S. Chakradhar Nagar, Tahsil And District Raigarh (C.G.) 13(B-3) - Ku. Stuti Gupta D/o Late Ajay Kumar Gupta, Aged About 18 Years R/o Village Mahapalli, Post Loing, P.S. Chakradhar Nagar, Tahsil And District Raigarh (C.G.) (Now dead) 13(C)- Arun Kumar Gupta S/o Late Shri Khemchand Gupta Aged About 41 Years R/o Mahapalli, Post Loing, P. S. Chakradhar Nagar- Raigarh, Tahsil And District Raigarh Chhattisgarh 13(D)- Ashutosh Gupta S/o Late Shri Khemchand Gupta Aged About 37 Years R/o Mahapalli, Post Loing, P. S. Chakradhar Nagar- Raigarh, Tahsil And District Raigarh Chhattisgarh 14 - Gurucharan S/o Budheshwar Aged About 54 Years R/o Mahapalli, Post Loing, P. S. Chakradhar Nagar- Raigarh, Tahsil And District Raigarh Chhattisgarh, District : Raigarh, Chhattisgarh 15 - Sheshcharn S/o Budheshwar Aged About 47 Years R/o Mahapalli, Post Loing, P. S. Chakradhar Nagar- Raigarh, Tahsil And District Raigarh Chhattisgarh, District : Raigarh, Chhattisgarh 16 - Shanti (Died And Deleted) Through Lrs. As Per Honble Court Order Dated 02-01-2024 16(A) Bodhram Sa S/o Mohan Banshidhar Sa Aged About 48 Years R/o Village Tapariya, Tahsil Himgir, District Sundergarh (Odisha) 16 (B) Jayram Sa S/o Mohan Banshidhar Sa Aged About 42 Years R/o Village Tapariya, Tahsil Himgir, District Sundergarh (Odisha) 16(C) Ajay Sa S/o Mohan Banshidhar Sa Aged About 39 Years R/o Village Tapariya, Tahsil Himgir, District Sundergarh (Odisha) 16(D) Gomti Gupta W/o Gunsagar Gupta Aged About 45 Years R/o Village Tetla, Tahsil Pussore, District Raigarh (C.G.) 16(E) Sushma Bhoy W/o Naveen Bhoy Aged About 35 Years R/o Keshla, Tahsil Lailunga, District Raigarh (C.G.) 17 - Kanti D/o Budheshwar Aged About 57 Years R/o Mahapalli, Post Loing, P. S. Chakradhar Nagar- Raigarh, Tahsil And District Raigarh Chhattisgarh 18 - Mu. Belmati (Deleted) As Per Honble Court Order Dated 16-09-2019. ... Petitioners versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Collector, Raigarh, Tahsil And District Raigarh Chhattisgarh 4 2 - Sub Divisional Officer-Cum- Land Acquisition Officer Raigarh, Tahsil And District Raigarh Chhattisgarh 3 - The Executive Engineer, Water Resources Department, Raigarh, Tahsil And District Raigarh Chhattisgarh 4 - (Deleted) Udhishthir As Per Honble Court Order Dated 16-09-2019. 4(A) Smt. Asnena W/o Kishore Bishwal, D/o Late Udhishthir Aged About 47 Years R/o Vinoba Nagar, Tahsil And District Raigarh (C.G.) 4(B) Smt. Deepti W/o Lalit Bishwal Aged About 42 Years D/o Late Udhishthir, R/o Boirdadar, Tahsil And District Raigarh (C.G.) 5 - Upendra S/o Lawanidhar Aged About 60 Years R/o Village Mouhapali, Tahsil And District Raigarh Chhattisgarh 6 - Umacharan S/o Lawanidhar Aged About 55 Years R/o Village Mouhapali, Tahsil And District Raigarh Chhattisgarh 7 - Chaturbhuj S/o Lawanidhar Aged About 53 Years R/o Village Mouhapali, Tahsil And District Raigarh Chhattisgarh 8 - Jitendra S/o Lawanidhar Aged About 50 Years R/o Village Mouhapali, Tahsil And District Raigarh Chhattisgarh 9 - Tekchand S/o Khiteshwar Aged About 70 Years R/o Village Mouhapali, Tahsil And District Raigarh Chhattisgarh 10 - Gupinath (Died) Through Legal Heirs As Per Honble Court Order Dated 02-11-2023. 10.(A) Rameshwar S/o Late Gopinath Aged About 57 Years R/o Village Mahapallli, Post Loing, Tahsil And District Raipur (C.G.) 10.(B) Umesh Kumar S/o Late Gopinath Aged About 53 Years R/o Village Mahapallli, Post Loing, Tahsil And District Raipur (C.G.) 10.(C) Hemangini W/o Late Jagbandhu Sa Aged About 55 Years R/o Village Gharghoda, Near Krishi Upaj Mandi, Tahsil Gharghoda, District Raigarh (C.G.) 11 - Ramesh S/o Rukman Aged About 50 Years R/o Village Mouhapali, Tahsil And District Raigarh Chhattisgarh 12 - Sampat S/o Dayanidhi Aged About 42 Years R/o Village Mouhapali, Tahsil And District Raigarh Chhattisgarh 13 - Shishupal S/o Dayanidhi Aged About 40 Years R/o Village Mouhapali, Tahsil And District Raigarh Chhattisgarh ... Respondents 5 For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Sourabh Sharma, Advocate For Respondent(s)/State : Mr. Arvind Dubey, Govt. Advocate For Respondents No. 4 to 13 : Mr. Ashutosh Raj Sinha, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Sanjay Agrawal, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal Order on Board 25/11/2025 1. The petitioners have filed the present writ petition claiming the following reliefs:- “10.1 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue a writ/writs, order/orders, direction/directions to the respondent to quash the impugned order dated 10/03/2011 (Annexure P/2). 10.2 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue a writ/writs, order/orders, direction/directions to the respondents to disburse the awarded amount in favour of the petitioners. 10,3 Any other relief as this Hon'ble Court may deems fit looking to the facts and circumstances of the case may also be awarded.” 2. The subject matter, in brief, is that, the petitioners belong to the same family and having a common ancestor. The petitioners were the owners of lands bearing khasra Nos. 265/1, 269 and 268, admeasuring 0.603 hectare, 2.254 hectares and 0.219 hectare respectively, total area 3.076 hectares, situated at village Mauhapali, Patwari Halka No. 20, R.I. Circle Raigarh, District Raigarh. For the purposes of Mauhapali Pond Reservoir Project, the aforesaid lands of the petitioners were acquired by the Land Acquisition Officer/Sub- Divisional Officer (Revenue), Raigarh and an award has been passed by the Land Acquisition Officer, Raigarh on 29.03.2011 in 6 Land Acquisition Case No. 32-A/82/08-09. As per the award dated 29.03.2011, the total compensation of the petitioners’ lands were assessed to Rs. 1,13,02,569/-. 3. Prior to passing of the award dated 29.03.2011, the respondent No.6- Umacharan, respondent No.8- Jitendra, respondent No.9- Tekchand and respondent No. 13- Shishupal raised an objection before the Land Acquisition Officer with respect to assessment of the compensation and their entitlement. It is also mentioned in their objection that a civil suit for declaration of title and permanent injunction has been filed by the respondents No. 4 to 13 before the learned 1st Civil Judge Class-II, Raigarh bearing Civil Suit No. 45-A/2009 and prayed for staying of disbursement of the compensation amount to the petitioners. The objection raised by the respondents No. 6, 8, 9 and 13 was decided on 10.03.2011 and it was ordered by the Land Acquisition Officer that the compensation of the acquired lands are to be assessed in the name of the lands owners, in whose name the revenue records are being recorded and after order passed by the competent court, the compensation should be disbursed to the concerned land owners. 4. The civil suit filed by the private respondents was pending and adjourned from time to time. Ultimately, on 29.05.2017, a cheque of Rs. 1,13,02,569/- was issued in favour of the petitioners- Dhananjay s/o Hemsundar and Daitari s/o Chaitan jointly bearing cheque No. 097200, dated 29.05.2017, which was of Axis Bank Limited, Raigarh branch. When the cheque was deposited by the petitioners in their 7 bank account for its clearance, the same was dishonored by the payee bank on the ground that “payment stopped by drawer”. 5. Since the award was passed on 29.03.2011, but the petitioners have not received any amount of compensation, and when the Land Acquisition Officer has passed an order on 10.03.2011 with respect to stopping of disbursement of the compensation amount till the order passed by the competent civil court, the petitioners filed the present writ petition challenging the said order dated 10.03.2011 (Annexure P/2), passed by the Land Acquisition Officer. 6. The private respondents No. 4 to 13 have filed their return and denied the entitlement of the petitioners to obtain compensation. They submitted in their return that, they are already prosecuting the Civil Suit No. 86-A/2013 initiated on 03.03.2009 and there are issue involved in the civil suit with respect to the entitlement of the share of joint family, because the acquired lands are the joint family property and the petitioners have no right to receive compensation alone till the civil suit is decided. The civil suit has already been filed much prior to the passing of the award and the Land Acquisition Officer has rightly stayed the disbursement of the compensation amount claimed by the petitioners. 7. On 28.08.2017, the petitioners have filed an application (I.A. No. 3 of 2017) for appropriate orders and for taking document on record, by which they sought a direction to the respondent authorities to release the amount of award for which they issued the cheque of the compensation amount to the petitioners on 29.05.2017 and the 8 payment of the said cheque was stopped by the Land Acquisition Officer. 8. On 28.08.2024, this Court had directed the State counsel to make submission, as to why the Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue)/Land Acquisition Officer has directed to stop payment of the cheque issued by the Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue) in view of the fact that the cheque issued to the petitioners was dishonored by payee bank on the ground of payment stopped by drawer. Time was granted to the State counsel to make submission as per the order dated 28.08.2024 and ultimately on 24.09.2024, the State counsel has submitted an affidavit pursuant to the order dated 10.09.2024 explaining the reasons for stopping of the clearance of the cheque issued to the petitioners. The following are the explanation of the Collector, Raigarh with respect to the order dated 10.09.2024, passed by this Court:- “1. That, I, Kartikeya Goel, aged about 44 years, S/o Mr. Ashok Kumar Goel, presently posted as Collector, District - Raigarh(C.G.)and as such I am fully conversant with the facts and circumstance of the present case and therefore, I am competent to swear this affidavit. 2. That in compliance of the Hon'ble Court order dated 10.09.2024 the present affidavit is being filed herewith to clarify that under what authority, the Land Acquisition Officer has directed to stop payment of the cheque issued by the SDO (Revenue), Raigarh to the petitioner which was issued in lieu of the payment of award under the Land Acquisition Act. The Collector, Raigarh is also directed to explain whether the proceeding in pursuance to the provisions of Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 has been drawn by referring the dispute to the decision of the Court or 9 not and whether there is any application pending or filed by anyone under Section 18 and 30 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. 3. It is respectfully submitted that the notification was issued for the acquisition of the land vide the notification no 32/8/2008-2009 under section 4 of Land Acquisition Act on 28.08.2009 and a civil suit no15-a/2009 for declaration and permanent injunction was filed by the Respondent No. 6, 8, 9 & 13 before the learned court, Raigarh which is still pending as well as the Writ petition was filed before the Hon'ble High Court of Chhattisgarh due to which the no action was taken by the Sub Divisional Office/ Land Acquisition Officer. The copy of the Civil Suit along with order sheet is collectively marked and annexed herewith as ANNEXURE A-1. 4. That, it is respectfully further submitted that the SDO on receipt of the application made by the respondent no. 6, 8, 9 & 13 had registered the case bearing case no 24/A-84/2016-17and had passed the order on 23.10.2017 stating that as the civil suit before the learned court. Raigarh and a petition before Hon'ble High Court is pending due to which the withdrawal of the amount of Rs. 1,13,02,569/ issued through this court bearing cheque no. 09200 is stopped. It is further submitted that the then land acquisition officer had passed an order dated 10.03.2011 bearing case no. 32/A-82/2008-2009 stating that the land owner Yudhishtir and others have filed an objection under section 9 of the said Act and on receiving such an objection, SDO has passed an order that the amount of compensation will be disbursed after an order passed by the appropriate court on the basis of enquiry report and Panchama which makes it clear from the perusal of the Gadna patra. Copy of the Gadna Patra is marked and annexed herewith as ANNEXURE A-2 An aforesaid order passed by SDO deciding an objection Under section 9 filed by Yudhishtir and other of the Land Acquisition Act 1894 which was not mentioned in the award and amount of compensation was wrongly paid to Dhananjay and 10 Others, thereafter the objectors Umashankar Gupta and Others objected in issuance of cheque due to which the drawing of cheque was stopped vide the order dated 23.10.2017. The copy of the order dated 23.10.2017 marked and annexure herewith as ANNEXURE-A-3. 5. It is respectfully submitted that as per the query of the Hon'ble Court whether the Sub Divisional Officer (R) has the power to withheld the compensation amount. It is submitted that the SDO has no power to withheld the compensation amount. Neither an application under section 18 was filed by the respondent no. 6,8, 9 and 13 nor by present petitioner. It is further submitted that the proceeding of section 18 and 30 of Land Acquisition Act, 1894 has not been carried out by the SDO in the present case. 6. It is respectfully further submitted that the SDO was never intended to suppressed his power neither was intended to harassed the present petitioner, but was in good faith as the amount of compensation is huge amount of Rs. 1,13,02,569/ and the objection was raised by the respondent no. 6, 8, 9 & 13 due to which the said amount was not disbursed to the present petitioner.” 9. The civil suit filed by the private respondents has subsequently decided by the learned 3rd Additional Judge to the Court of 1st Civil Judge Senior Division, Raigarh vide its judgment and decree dated 28.11.2024, which was passed in Civil Suit No. 45-A/2009 and the civil suit filed by the plaintiffs/private respondents has been dismissed, as the same is barred by Section 34 of the Special Relief Act, 1963. 10. On 07.07.2025, this Court had again passed an order and directed the State to file an affidavit clarifying, as to how the petitioners are entitled to get compensation of lands and to clarify, as to how the 11 petitioners have become the owners of the pond, which was acquired by the respondent authorities. Pursuant to the order dated 07.07.2025, the Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue), Raigarh has filed his affidavit on 09.09.2025 stating therein that, as per the revenue records, the subject lands are recorded in the name of the petitioners in the revenue records and after deciding the objections raised by the private respondents under Section 9 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, the award has been passed with respect to compensation of the acquired land of the petitioners. The relevant para of the affidavit filed on 09.09.2025 by the Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue), Raigarh is necessary to quote here, which reads as below:- “5. In compliance of the directions of the Hon'ble Court it is respectfully submitted as under:- i. So far as the direction of the Hon'ble Court to clarify as to how the petitioners are entitled to get compensation of land? In this regard it is respectfully submitted that upon the proposal of the Executive Engineer, Water Resources Division, Raigarh dated 06/01/2009/19/03/2009 the Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue) Raigarh has initiated the land acquisition proceedings for acquisition of private land admeasuring 5.324 Hectares situated at Village Mauhapali, Patwari Halka No. 20 Revenue Circle, Raigarh District Raigarh as per the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 as the said land fall under the submerge area of Mauhapali Reservoir Scheme. That as per the revenue records the lands bearing Khasra No. 265/1, 269 and 268 admeasuring 0.603 Hectare, 2.254 Hectare and 0.219 Hectare. Total 3.076 Hectare belongs to the petitioners and accordingly after publication of the notification under section 4(i) of the Land 12 Acquisition Act, 1894 dated 28/08/2009; notification under section 6 of the Act published on 17/09/2010 and thereafter the respondents No.6, 8, 9 & 13 had made objection under section 9 of the Act and the said objection has been decided by the SDO stating that the amount of compensation will be disbursed after an order passed by the Civil Court on the basis of enquiry report and Panchanama and accordingly under section 11 of the Act the award dated 29/03/2011 has been passed by the Sub Divisional Officer-Cum-Land Acquisition Officer, Raigarh District Raigarh in Land Acquisition Case NO. 32/A-82/2008-09 and compensation to the tune of Rs. 22,23,713/, Rs.83,12,189/ and Rs. 8,07,617/-. Total compensation of an amount of Rs. 1,13,43,519/ has been awarded in favour of the petitioners. That after passing the award and during pendency of the present petition the respondents No. 6, 8, 9 & 13 had made an objection in respect to awarding the compensation in favour of the petitioners on the ground of pendency of the Civil Suit No. 45 A/2009 instituted on 03/03/2009 against the present petitioners and accordingly the Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue) Raigarh registered the Revenue Case No. 24/A-84/2016-17 and passed the order dated 23/10/2017 stating that as the Civil Suit is pending before the Court of Learned First Civil Judge Senior Grade, Third Additional Judge of Raigarh District Raigarh (CG) and pendency of the present petition the withdrawal of the amount of Rs. 1,13,02,569/ through cheque No.09200 is stopped. That during lapse of time and pendency of the present petition the Civil Suit preferred by the respondents No. 6, 8, 9 & 13 bearing Civil Suit No. 45 A/2009 has been dismissed vide judgment and degree dated 28/11/2024 passed by the Court of Learned First Civil Judge Senior 13 Grade, Third Additional Judge of Raigarh District Raigarh (CG). Copy of the judgment and decree dated 28/11/2024 passed in Civil Suit No. 45 A/2009 is annexed herewith as Annexure-A/4. Now the petitioners are entitled for compensation as per the award unless and until the judgment and decree passed by the Learned Civil Court is stayed by the appellate Court having competent jurisdiction and the answering respondents/State crave leave of this Hon'ble Court to permit them to disburse the same in favour of the petitioners. In view of the above it is thus clear that the petitioners being the owners of the land in question which was acquired and award has been passed in their favour and accordingly the petitioners are entitled to get compensation of land. ii. So far as the direction of the Hon'ble Court to clarify as to how the petitioners have become the owner of the pond including provisions which are prevalent in the facts of the case? In this regard it is respectfully submitted that the Pond which exists upon the ownership right of the petitioners and the said pond exists upon the private land of the petitioners and the same is not upon the government land. To substantiate the above the answering respondents/State is herewith filing the revenue documents Wajib-ul-Urj showing the Pond recorded in the name of the forefathers of the petitioners bearing Khasra No. 269 at Sr. No.5 as Annexure-A-5 and as per the provisions of the Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code, 1959 the petitioner is owner of the said land upon which the pond exists.” 11. Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that, the petitioners are land owners and an award has been passed in their favour much before i.e. on 29.03.2011, but till date they have not received the 14 compensation. In the year 2017, a cheque was issued by the Land Acquisition Officer, however the same was also dishonored on the ground of stop payment by the Land Acquisition Officer. The dispute raised by the private respondents in the civil suit has already been decided and as per their instructions, no appeal has been filed by them, as they have not received any notice of any appeal or other proceeding from any higher court. Since, the award has been passed in favour of the petitioners and the said award has not been challenged by the private respondents and the civil suit has already been decided, the petitioners are entitled for disbursement of the amount under the award dated 29.03.2011. He would also submit that, in the affidavit submitted by the Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue), Raigarh, they have also considered that the petitioners are entitled for compensation as per the award until and unless any order passed by the competent civil court and they crave leave of this Court to permit them to disburse the same in favour of the petitioners. The petitioners being the owners of the lands in question and their lands have been awarded, they are entitled for the compensation amount under the award. He would further submit that, when the cheque issued by the Land Acquisition Officer under the award dated 29.03.2011 with respect to compensation of the acquired lands and whey they deposited the said cheque in their bank account for its clearance, the same was dishonored by the payee bank and against such dishonor of the cheque, the petitioners are prosecuting a criminal complaint case bearing Criminal Complaint Case No. 34/2018 before the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Raigarh for the offence under Section 138 of Negotiable 15 Instruments Act, 1881. He would also submit that the said criminal complaint case was dismissed by the learned trial Court for want of necessary sanction for prosecution against the government officials vide order dated 29.11.2019. The said order of dismissal of the complaint case was challenged by the petitioners by filing the criminal revision bearing Criminal Revision No. 133 of 2019 before the learned 5th Additional Sessions Judge, Raigarh, which was allowed and the matter was remitted back to the learned trial Court to proceed in accordance with law and the earlier order was set-aside. Against the order dated 25.02.2020, the government officials against whom the petitioners had filed CRMP No. 2102 of 2023 before this Court, which is pending for its consideration, in which vide order dated 05.09.2024, the further proceeding of criminal complaint case was stayed. Learned counsel for the petitioner would also submit that, he has already submitted the undertaking and affidavits of the petitioners, who are prosecuting the criminal case under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, and therefore, there would be no impediment to disburse the compensation amount to the petitioners under the award dated 29.03.2011. 12. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the private respondents would submit that, since the civil suit filed by the private respondents has already been decided against them, they are having no grievance, if the amount of compensation under the award would be disbursed to the petitioners as per the undertaking given by the respective petitioners, who are prosecuting the complaint case under 16 Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 and also under any other impediment, if any. 13. Learned counsel appearing for the State would also submit that, since the lands of the petitioners have been acquired in the year 2011 and award has been passed on 29.03.2011, they have earlier issued a cheque for a sum of Rs. 1,13,02,569/- on 29.05.2017, however, due to the objection raised by the private respondents with respect to the pendency of the civil suit, to avoid any further controversy between the parties, they stopped the payment of the amount under the said cheque, which was bona fide stopped by the authorities. Since, the civil suit of the private respondents has been decided vide judgment and decree dated 28.11.2024, now the legal impediment to disburse the amount under the award has been diluted and they have no objection in disbursement of the said amount to the petitioners, which they have mentioned in their affidavit dated 09.09.2025, subject to any judgment and decree passed by any Court or any order passed by the higher authorities. He would further submit that, since the persons, who are prosecuting the criminal complaint case against the government officials for the offence under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 before the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Raigarh, have already submitted their undertaking that they will not press their grievances, if the amount of award is to be disbursed to them and they will make appropriate application for withdrawal of the proceeding, either before the trial Court or before this Court in criminal miscellaneous petition, they have no objection, if any order 17 for disbursement of the compensation amount under the award is being passed in favour of the petitioners. 14. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the pleadings of the parties and gone through the documents annexed with the petition. 15. Undisputedly, an award has been passed on 29.03.2011 with respect to acquisition of the lands of the petitioners bearing khasra Nos. 265/1, 269 and 268, admeasuring 0.603 hectare, 2.254 hectares and 0.219 hectare situated at village Mauhapali, Patwari Halka No. 20, Tahsil and District Raigarh. The total compensation amount of acquired lands of the petitioners was assessed as Rs. 1,13,02,569/-. It is not disputed by the respondents that, the civil suit filed by the private respondents has been decided vide judgment and decree dated 28.11.2024 by the learned 3rd Additional Judge to the Court of 1st Civil Judge Senior Division, Raigarh in Civil Suit No. 45-A/2009 and presently, there appears to be no proceeding of any civil suit pending between the parties with respect to their title or entitlement of the compensation amount with respect to the subject lands. When the petitioners are held the land owners and their lands have been acquired for the purposes of Mauhapali Pond Reservoir Project, they are entitled for compensation for their acquired lands, for which an award has also been passed on 29.03.2011 and the said award is not challenged by any of the parties. The challenge was only with respect to the apportionment or entitlement amongst the family members as has been claimed by the private respondents, but their claim with respect to the subject property has also been adjudicated 18 by the competent civil court. Pursuant to the award, the cheque issued to the petitioners on 29.05.2017, has been dishonored by the payee bank on the ground of payment stopped by drawer, for which a criminal complaint case is pending before the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Raigarh and a criminal miscellaneous petition is filed before this Court, in which an interim order has been passed with respect to staying the further proceeding of the criminal complaint case. The petitioners/complainants of the criminal complaint case pending before the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Raigarh for the offence under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, have filed their undertaking that, if the amount of compensation under the award is being disbursed to them, they will not prosecute the criminal complaint case for dishonor of cheque. From the affidavit submitted by the Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue), Raigarh, dated 09.09.2025, it also not disputed by the State that the petitioners are entitled for compensation for their acquired lands and the State is also ready to disburse the amount of compensation, which is still lying with the State Government under the award. It is only due to bona fide reason, the amount was stopped by the State authorities, as it was complained that there exists a civil dispute between the family members and to avoid any further complications, they instructed for stopping of disbursement of the amount of cheque. 16. Be that as it may, whatever dispute was earlier raised by the either parties, presently there appears to be no litigation pending between the parties with respect to the apportionment or entitlement of the 19 compensation amount, or even the claim of any title between the members of the family. Admittedly, the lands have been acquired and cheque was also prepared in the name of Dhananjay and Daitari, because the other land owners, whose names have been recorded in the revenue records at the time of acquisition of lands, were given their consent to issue cheque in the name of Dhananjay and Daitari. Looking to the present scenario of dispute between the parties and the facts and circumstances of the case, except for disbursement of the amount under the award, no other dispute appears to be exist between the parties and the amount of compensation under the award dated 29.03.2011 is still lying with the State Government, which the State Government also have no objection in its disbursement to the petitioners. 17. Since, the Land Acquisition Officer crave leave of this Court to permit them to disburse the same in favour of the petitioners and considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case, they filed their undertaking in the form of affidavit dated 24.11.2025 that, if the compensation amount, as per the award dated 29.03.2011, disbursed to the petitioners, they will not prosecute the complaint case filed by them under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 against the said cheque issued by the Land Acquisition Officer pursuant to the compensation under the award, which is pending before the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Raigarh and to file appropriate application in the proceeding, either before the learned trial Court or before this Court in criminal miscellaneous petition. They have also furnished undertaking that, they shall bound by any 20 order/judgment/decree passed in any proceeding, if any, subject to availing appropriate legal remedy available under the law. Along with their application for taking affidavit/undertaking documents on record, they have filed the affidavits of Sushma Sahu, Devendra Kumar Gupta, Surubali Gupta, Suchitra Gupta, Sudha Gupta, Pramod Gupta, Savitri Devi and Savita Barik, who are the complainants in the complaint case filed under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 before the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Raigarh, who are the legal representatives of Dhananjay and Daitari, in whose names the said cheque was issued by the Land Acquisition Officer in the year 2017 and after their death the names of these persons, who have filed affidavits in the form of undertaking have been substituted before this Court in the pending criminal miscellaneous petition. It is also necessary to quote the relevant part of their application for taking affidavit/undertaking documents on record (I.A. No. 12 of 2025) as well as the affidavit of one of the persons, as the contents of the affidavits of all these persons are one and same:- Contents of application for taking affidavit/ undertaking documents on record:- “3. That, it is worth here to mention that Daitari & Dhananjay filed a complaint under section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act against then and their sub divisional officer and land acquisition officer. The complaint so filed dismissed on 29.11.2019 for want of necessary sanction under section 197 of CrPc against which Daitari Gupta and LR's of Dhananjay Gupta namely Smt. Savitri W/o Late Dhananjay, Pramod Kumar S/o Late Dhananjay and Savita Barik D/o Late Dhananjay Gupta filed Criminal Revision no. 133/2019 before the Session judge Raigarh, and the revision was allowed by 25.02.2020 and order of Aquittal/dismissal of complaint by Judicial Magistrate First Class set aside and the Learned JMFC is directed to proceed further in accordance with law against order dated 25.02.20220, Prakash Kumar Sarway filed WP(Cr) No. 196/2020 by order dated 08.03.2021 the effect and 21 operation of 25.02.2020 stayed and during pendency of WP(Cr) Daitari Gupta also died and though application filed for bringing the LR's on record the writ petition itself was withdrawn on 03.08.2023 with liberty to file petition under section 482 of CrPc. 4. 4. That, presently CRMP No. 2102/2019 Prakash Kumar Sarway V/s Daitari Gupta (died) through LR's and Others is pending consideration before the Hon'ble court and Hon'ble court by order dated 05.09.2024 and was pleased to grant interim relief. 5. In CRMP no. 2102/2023 the legal representative of Late Daitari Gupta and Late Dhananjay Gupta are impleaded and the legal representative are filing herewith undertaking/ affidavit to the effect that if the amount under award is paid in accordance with the Land Acquisition Act to them they will not prosecute the complaint case under section 138 of N.I. Act. The aforesaid Affidavit/Undertaking are marked as Annexure A (Colly) with copy of order passed in CRMP No. 2102/2023, order dated 29.11.2029 passed in complaint case no. 34/2018 in case of Daitari Gupta & another Vs. Prakash Kumar Sawary and another passed by JMFC Raigarh (C.G) and also order dated 25.02.2020 passed in Criminal Revision No. 133/2019 between Daitarai Gupta and Ors Vs Prakash Kumar Sawary and another.” Contents of affidavit of Sushma Sahu W/o Ramakant Sahu R/o village Banora, Tahsil and District Raigarh:- “1. That I am the legal representative of Daitari Gupta and party to the complaint under section 138 of NI Act and also in CRMP. No. 2102/2023 do, hereby undertake that if the amount of award passed in land Acquisition proceeding dated 29.03.2011 is disbursed in accordance with Land Acquisition Act, 1894 in favor of petitioners in the instant writ petition then shall withdraw the complaint case pending before JMFC, Raigarh in complaint case no. 34/2018 Daitari Gupta and Another Vs. Prakash Kumar Sawraya and another and also undertakes to file suitable application in pending CRMP No. 2102/2023 for withdrawal of complaint case and shall bound by any order/judgment/decree passed in any proceeding if any subject to availing appropriate legal remedy available under the law. 2. The contents of this affidavit has been drafted under my instruction and read above and explained to me in Hindi and Local language. 3. The contents of this affidavit are true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief and I am fully aware about the judicial proceedings pending.” 22 18. Accordingly, it is directed to the respondent authorities to disburse the amount of compensation against the award dated 29.03.2011, passed by the Land Acquisition Officer, Raigarh, in Land Acquisition Case No. 32-A/82/08-09 with respect to the total lands admeasuring 3.076 hectares of the lands of the petitioners, which have been acquired by the Land Acquisition Officer, Raigarh to the petitioners, in accordance with law. The petitioners are bound by their undertaking given before this Court as per their undertaking/ affidavits dated 24.11.2025. 19. With the aforesaid observations, the present writ petition is disposed of. Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) Judge ved