1 2025:CGHC:53171-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WA No. 637 of 2025 1 - Smt. Vinita Agrawal W/o Shri Vikas Agrawal Aged About 52 Years R/o Radiant Public School, Nimora, Raipur, District - Raipur Chhattisgarh 2 - Vikas Agrawal S/o Shri S.N. Agrawal Aged About 55 Years R/o Radiant Public School, Nimora, Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh ... Appellants versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Department Of Revenue, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Capital Complex, Naya Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh 2 - The Collector Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh 3 - Sub-Divisional Officer Revenue-Cum-Land Acquisition Officer, Arang/abhanpur, Headquarter/ 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 ... Respondent(s) (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- For Appellants : Mr. Keshav Dewangan, Advocate. For Respondents/State : Mr. YS Thakur, Addl AG with Mr. Sangarsh Pandey, GA. For Respondent No.4 : Mr. Anuroop Panda, Advocate. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 2 Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Mr. Arvind Kumar Verma, Judge Order on Board Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice 31.10.2025 1. Heard, Mr. Keshav Dewangan, learned counsel for the appellants, Mr. YS Thakur, Addl AG for the State and Mr. Anuroop Panda, learned counsel for respondent No.4 and perused the writ appeal. 2. Appellants have filed this writ appeal with following prayer: “ a). Quash and set aside Para-102 of the judgment dated 04.04.2025 passed by the Hon'ble Single Bench in W.P.(C) No. 2517/2017, to the extent it permits the respondents to recover the compensation paid to the petitioners along with 7% per annum interest. b) Prohibit the respondents from recovering any interest on the compensation amount paid to the appellants, considering the appellants' deprivation of any kind of use of his acquired land and the respondents' commercial exploitation of the acquired land. c) Grant any other relief(s) as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.” 3. Mr. Anuroop Panda, learned counsel for respondent No.4/NRDA states that as has been observed by the learned Single Judge in Para 102 of the impugned judgment that if the respondent-authority requires any land for public purpose under the new Act of 2013, (Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013), in accordance with law, then they are at liberty 3 to draw fresh proceeding of land acquisition and the statement at Bar has been made that the respondent-authority requires the land. 4. In view of above statement made by learned counsel for respondent No.4, present writ appeal stands disposed of. CC as per rules. Sd/- Sd/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice J.