2025:CGHC:30807 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 2337 of 2016 1 - Yashoda Bai Alias Ashoda Bai Wd/o Late Pitarbhan, Aged About 55 Years. 2 - Laxmi Alias Laxmin Chandra, D/o Late Pitarbhan, Aged About 26 Years. 3 - Preeti Chandra, D/o Late Pitarbhan, Aged About 24 Years. 4 - Namita Chandra, D/o Late Pitarbhan, Aged About 22 Years. 5 - Rakesh Chandra, S/o Late Pitarbhan, Aged About 18 Years. R/o Hamalpara, P.S. And Tahsil Kharsiya, District Raigarh, Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - Union of India Through The Secretary, Ministry Of Railway, New Delhi, Delhi. 2 - General Manager, South Eastern Central Railway, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. 3 - Collector, Raigarh, District Raigarh, Chhattisgarh, District : Raigarh, Chhattisgarh 4 - Sub Divisional Officer R/ Sub Land Acquisition Officer, Kharsiya, District Raigarh, Chhattisgarh. 5 - Deputy Chief Engineer, South Eastern Central Railway, Raigarh, District Raigarh, Chhattisgarh. 6 - Tijram Chandra, S/o Late Puniram, Aged About 65 Years. 7 - Babulal Chandra, S/o Late Puniram, Aged About 61 Years. 8 - Hiraram Chandra, S/o Late Puniram, Aged About 58 Years. 9 - Panchram Chandra, S/o Late Puniram, Aged About 55 Years. RespondentsNo. 6 to 9 are R/o Village Mouhapali, Tahsil Kharsiya, District Raigarh, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondents For Petitioner : None. For State : Mr. Kishan Lal Sahu, Dy. Govt. Advocate. For Res. No. 6 to 9 : Mr. Nilkanth Malaviya, Advocate. ARUN KUMAR DEWANGAN Digitally signed by ARUN KUMAR DEWANGAN Date: 2025.07.28 16:51:27 +0530 Hon'ble Shri Justice Narendra Kumar Vyas Order on Board 07/07 /2025 1. The petitioner has filed this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of direction to respondent No. 4 i.e. Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue)/ Sub Land Acquisition Officer, Kharsiya, District- Raigarh for apportionment of compensation of land which has been acquired for construction of rail corridor admeasuring 2.469 hectare situated at Village- Madanpur, Tahsil- Kharsiya, District- Raigarh between the petitioners and respondents No. 6 to 9 as they are family members and the land belongs to them. 2. From perusal of record, it is evident that an award was passed by respondent No. on 04.09.2015 under the Railway Act, 1989 (for short “the Act, 1989”) granting compensation of the land which has been acquired for rail corridor. But a dispute of apportionment of the compensation between family members of the petitioner & respondents No. 6 to 9 arises, therefore, this petition has been filed for issuance of direction. 3. The said land has been acquired under the provisions of the Act, 1989 which provides complete mechanism for passing award under Section 20 of the Act, 1989 and apportionment of award amount between the family members. Section 2H of the Act, 1989 provides for deposit of payment of amount and Section 20H(4) of the Act provides for jurisdiction within whose limit the land is situated. Section 20N of the Act, 1989 provides for the Land Acquisition Act 1 of 1894 not to apply and mentioned that nothing in the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 shall apply to an acquisition under this Act. Section 20H(4) & 20N of the Act, 1989 are as under:- “Section 20H (4)- If any dispute arises as to the apportionment of the amount or any part thereof or to any person to whom the same or any part thereof is payable, the competent authority shall refer the dispute to the decision of the principal civil court of original jurisdiction within the limits of whose jurisdiction the land is situated. 20N. Land Acquisition Act 1 of 1894 not to apply.—Nothing in the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 shall apply to an acquisition under this Act.” 4. From perusal of provisions of the Act, 1989, the petitioner has remedy to raise dispute before the competent authority and from records, it is evident that the petitioner has already taken objection on 14.07.2016 and this petition has been filed by the petitioner on 20.08.2016 wherein the petitioner has prayed for apportionment of the award amount of the land in question which is joint family property. The objection raised by the petitioner has been decided by the Land Acquisition Officer wherein it has been mentioned that as per the revenue record, the land is recorded in the name Pitar Bhan, Tijram, Babulal, Hiraram & Pancharam by caste Chandranahu total Khasra No. 6 area admeasuring 2.469 Hectare. Thus, the entitlement of the claim of the petitioners is a disputed question of facts which can be adjudicated by the Competent jurisdictional Civil Court as per Section 20H(4) of the Act, 1989. 5. In view of the above, the instant writ petition is not maintainable before this Court at this stage. Since, the petitioner has already raised dispute before the Land Acquisition Officer/respondent No. 4, therefore, the Land Acquisition Officer is directed to refer matter to the concerned Civil Court having jurisdiction for adjudication as per Section 20H(4) of the Act, 1989 who in turn will decide the matter in accordance with law expeditiously on the basis of pleadings, evidence & material placed on record. 6. With the aforesaid observation and direction, the instant writ petition stands dispose of. Sd/- (Narendra Kumar Vyas) Judge Arun