1 2025:CGHC:59874-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WA No. 821 of 2025 1 - Mastram Yadav S/o Vishal Yadav Aged About 50 Years R/o Village- Kotrabhata, Post Palaud, Ps Mandir Hasoud, Tah. Aarang, Raipur (C.G.) 2 - Lata Yadav D/o Sakharam Yadav Aged About 30 Years R/o Village- Kotrabhata, Post Palaud, Ps Mandir Hasoud, Tah. Aarang, Distt.- Raipur, (C.G.) (Now W/o Rupendra Yadav, Aged About 45 Years, R/o 91, Ward No. 5 Tarsiva, Dhamtari (C.G.) 493773 3 - Sakharam Yadav S/o Jagatram Yadav, Died On 09-03-2025 Nil 3.1 - Kumari Bai Yadav W/o Late Sakharam Yadav Aged About 60 Years R/o Yadav Para Nala Chowk, Kotrabhata, Palod, Raipur (C.G.) 492101 3.2 - Sudama Yadav S/o Late Sakharam Yadav Aged About 43 Years R/o Yadav Para Nala Chowk, Kotrabhata, Palod, Raipur (C.G.) 492101 3.3 - Lalit Yadav S/o Late Sakharam Yadav Aged About 38 Years R/o Yadav Para Nala Chowk, Kotrabhata, Palod, Raipur (C.G.) 492101 3.4 - Kailash Yadav S/o Late Sakharam Yadav Aged About 38 Years R/o Yadav Para Nala Chowk, Kotrabhata, Palod, Raipur (C.G.) 492101 4 - Manharan S/o Manglu Pal Aged About 55 Years R/o Village- Kotrabhata, Post- Palaud, Ps Mandir Hasoud, Tah. Aarang, Raipur (C.G.) 2 5 - Ramesh Pal S/o Late Manthir Pal Aged About 28 Years R/o Village- Kotrabhata, Post- Palaud, Ps Mandir Hasoud, Tah. Aarang, Raipur (C.G.) ... Appellants(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Department Of Housing And Environment, Mantralaya, Naya Raipur, Raipur (C.G.) 2 - District Collector Collectorate, Raipur (C.G.) 3 - Naya Raipur Development Authority Through Its Chief Executive Officer, New Rajendra Nagar, In Front Of Vijeta Complex, Rda Building, Raipur (C.G.) 4 - Land Acquisition Officer/sub Divisional Officer Tah. Aarang- Abhanpur, Raipur (C.G.) 5 - Awadhram Yadav S/o Kishlal Yadav Aged About 40 Years R/o Village- Kotrabhata, Post- Palaud, Ps Mandir Hasoud, Tah. Aarang, Distt.- Raipur, (C.G.) 6 - Govardhan Kurre S/o Asharam Satnami Aged About 79 Years R/o Village- Kotrabhata, Post Palaud, Ps Mandir Hasoud, Tah. Aarang, Distt.- Raipur (C.G.) 7 - Sukhchand (Died And Deleted) As Per Honble Court Order Dated 28-02-2024. 7.1 - Shanti Banjare W/o Late Sukhchand Aged About 53 Years R/o Village- Kotrabhata, Post- Palaud, Ps Mandir Hasoud, Tah. Aarang, Distt.- Raipur (C.G.) 3 7.2 - Usha Ghritlahre D/o Late Sukhchand R/o Village- Kotrabhata, Post- Palaud, Ps Mandir Hasoud, Tah. Aarang, Distt.- Raipur (C.G.) 7.3 - Omprakash Banjare S/o Late Sukhchand R/o Village- Kotrabhata, Post- Palaud, Ps Mandir Hasoud, Tah. Aarang, Distt.- Raipur (C.G.) 7.4 - Roshan Banjare S/o Late Sukhchand R/o Village- Kotrabhata, Post- Palaud, Ps Mandir Hasoud, Tah. Aarang, Distt.- Raipur (C.G.) 7.5 - Simran Banjare D/o Late Sukhchand R/o Village- Kotrabhata, Post- Palaud, Ps Mandir Hasoud, Tah. Aarang, Distt.- Raipur (C.G.) 8 - Sheeshpal S/o Prem Banjare R/o Village- Kotrabhata, Post- Palaud, Ps Mandir Hasoud, Tah. Aarang, Distt.- Raipur (C.G.) 9 - Devsingh Yadav S/o Phiranta Yadav Aged About 45 Years R/o Village- Kotrabhata, Post- Palaud, Ps Mandir Hasoud, Tah.- Aarang, Distt.- Raipur (C.G. 10 - Santrabai D/o Mayaram Satnami Aged About 64 Years R/o Village- Kotrabhata, Post- Palaud, Ps Mandir Hasoud, Tah.- Aarang, Distt.- Raipur (C.G.) 11 - Santosh Yadav S/o Jaipal Yadav Aged About 35 Years R/o Village- Kotrabhata, Post- Palaud, Ps Mandir Hasoud, Tah.- Aarang, Distt.- Raipur (C.G.) 12 - Puneet Ram Banjare S/o Ganpat Aged About 60 Years R/o Village- Kotrabhata, Post- Palaud, Ps Mandir Hasoud, Tah.- Aarang, Distt.- Raipur (C.G.) 13 - Santuram (Died And Deleted) As Per Honble Court Order Dated 28- 02-2024. 4 13.1 - Belabai W/o Late Santuram, R/o. Village Kotrabhata, Tahsil Aarang, Raipur (CG) 13.2 - Nathela S/o Late Santuram R/o Village- Kotrabhata, Tahsil- Aarang, Raipur (C.G.) 13.3 - Pardeshi S/o Late Santuram R/o Village- Kotrabhata, Tahsil- Aarang, Raipur (C.G.) 13.4 - Parvati D/o Late Santuram R/o Village- Kotrabhata, Tahsil- Aarang, Raipur (C.G.) 13.5 - Parbatia D/o Late Santuram R/o Village- Kotrabhata, Tahsil- Aarang, Raipur (C.G.) 13.6 - Paraga S/o Late Santuram R/o Village- Kotrabhata, Tahsil- Aarang, Raipur (C.G.) 13.7 - Hemin D/o Late Santuram R/o Village- Kotrabhata, Tahsil- Aarang, Raipur (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) For Appellant(s) : Ms. Sharmila Singha, Sr.Counsel assisted by Shri Kanwaljeet Singh Saini, Advocate For Respondent/State : Shri Shashank Thakur, Dy.AG For Respondents Shri Yogesh Pandey,Advocate on behalf of Shri Animesh Twiari, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Arvind Kumar Verma, Judge Order on Board Per Ramesh Sinha, C.J. 10/12/2025 Heard on I.A. No. 01, application filed under Rule 125 of the High Court Rules, 2007 for bringing the legal heirs of some of the petitioner No.7 on record. 5 2. Upon due consideration and the reasons mentioned in the application, the same is allowed. The Legal heirs of the petitioner No.7 are taken on record. 3. The present writ appeal is directed against the order dated 03.09.2025 passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition (C) No.978 of 2014 by which the writ petition filed by the appellants challenging the land acquisition proceedings in Revenue Case No. 16A/82/2010-11 (Village- Kotrabhata, Raipur) was dismissed. 4. Facts of the case in brief are that the appellants, agriculturists and owners, whose agricultural lands situated in village Kotrabhata were acquired under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (“the 1894 Act”) as incorporated in the Naya Raipur Development Scheme (Layer1). The appellants challenged the following: i. The notification issued under Section 4(1) read with Section 17(1) of the 1894 Act wherein emergency provisions under Section 17 were invoked without adequate or specific reasons. ii. The non-publication of the said notification in the locality, thus denying the appellants the opportunity to raise objections. iii. The award made in the land acquisition proceedings without giving due consideration to the objections filed by the appellants and other villagers. iv. The failure of the State authorities to comply with procedural requirements under the Chhattisgarh Nagar Tatha Gram Nivesh Adhiniyam 1973 (Town and Country Planning Act) concerning the 6 formulation and publication of the Town Development Scheme (TDS) and 5. The arbitrary invocation of emergency provisions to bypass the due process and the Rehabilitation Policy applicability only to consensual acquisitions. The appellants have alleged non-publication of notifications locally, mechanical rejection of objections, false premise of no objections in the award, absence of Divisional Commissioner approval for award exceeding Rs. 3 crores and non compliance with Sections 49.50 & 56 of the 1973 Act for Town Development Scheme. They have further claimed the 2018 amendments to the 1973 Act rendering the acquisition invalid absent and finalized TDS. The writ petition is sought quashing the acquisition notifications and award as well as directions to the State to modify the Town Development Scheme after holding due consultations with the villagers. 6. Learned counsel for the appellants vehemently assailed the impugned order submitting that Emergency Clause under Section 17(1) and 17(4) of Land Acquisition Act, 1894 was invoked without specific urgency reasons, merely to bypass Section 5A enquiry, negated delayed possession years later. She submits that the emergency provisions under Section 17 of the 1894 Act were invoked merely to defeat rightful objections and not on any demonstrated urgency, as physical possession was taken years later, vitiating the entire acquisition process. The notification under Section 4(1) was not duly published or affixed locally, violating the mandatory notice requirements denying the appellants any meaningful hearing. The Town and Country Planning 7 Act, 1973 being a special State legislation with Presidential assent, mandates compliance with its procedural safeguards including publication and hearing of objections before finalizing TDS which was flagrantly ignored. The award lacks approval from the Divisional Commissioner as required for acquisitions exceeding Rs. 3 crores, hence, is void. The Rehabilitation Policy of 2006 cannot be applied as the acquisition proceedings are illegal and liable to be quashed. It is in applicable here and the acquisition lapsed beyond timelines, entitling quashing of all proceedings. 7. Learned counsel for the State/respondents justified the acquisition on the grounds that the land acquisition being for a public purpose under Sections 55 and 56 of the Town and Country Planning Act, 1973 for establishing the new capital of Chhattisgarh. The Emergency Provisions were being invoked due to exigencies of implementing the development scheme supported by notifications published in the official Gazette and local press. However, the notifications published in the Gazette (26.08.2011) is time barred. The Rehabilitation benefits are available to the affected land owners under the State Policy. The present appeal is therefore devoid of merits and therefore may be dismissed. 8. We have meticulously examined the record, statutory matrix and rival contentions of the learned counsel for the parties, including the statutory provisions, notifications, pleadings and the impugned order this Court notes that the learned Single Judge has disposed of the writ petition with the following directions: 8 “6. ………..The petition at this juncture is disposed of with liberty in favor of the petitioners to make representation(s) before the respondent No.1 & 3 within a period of 30 days from today and in turn, the respondents No. 1 & 3 are directed to decide the representation(s) so made by the petitioners strictly in accordance with the Rehabilitation Policy dated 28.02.2006 preferably within a further period of 90 days from today. With the aforesaid observation(s)/direction (s), the present petition is disposed of.” 9. The learned Single Judge while acknowledging the challenge to the notifications under Sections 4(1) read with 17(1), Section 6 and the award dated 30.08.2012 in Revenue Case No. 16A/82 Year 2010-11 observed that the acquisition was for the public purpose of Naya Raipur Development under Sections 55 and 56 of the CG Nagar Tatha Gram Nivesh Adhinyam 1973. 10. The appellants’ challenge collapses on multiple fronts warranting unhesitating dismissal. Since the learned Single Judge has rightly eschewed merits, fashioning pragmatic relief via representation under Rehabilitation Policy- an efficacious non disruptive remedy, hence, no jurisdictional error or perversity warrants interference. 11. In view of the foregoing discussion, the Writ Appeal fails and is dismissed as such. Sd/- Sd/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice SUGUNA DUBEY Digitally signed by SUGUNA DUBEY Date: 2025.12.10 17:56:56 +0530