1 2025:CGHC:60888-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WA No. 879 of 2025 Chhattisgarh State Industrial Development Corporation Ltd., (A Government Of Chhattisgarh Undertaking) Through Its Managing Director, Udyog Bhawan, Ring Road No. 1, Raipur Chhattisgarh 492006 (Intervener In Writ Petition) --- Appellant(s) versus 1. Vijay Kumar Patel S/o Late Indal Ram Patel Aged About 45 Years R/o Village Chhote Bhandar, Post Bade Bhandar, Tahsil Pussor, Distt. Raigarh Chhattisgarh (Petitioner No. 1 In The Writ Petition) 2. Chandrashekhar Patel S/o Yuvraj Patel Aged About 52 Years R/o Village Chhote Bhandar, Post Bade Bhandar, Tahsil Pussor, Distt. Raigarh Chhattisgarh (Petitioner No. 2 In The Writ Petition) 3. Nohar Lal Patel S/o Jai Singh Patel Aged About 56 Years R/o Village Chhote Bhandar, Post Bade Bhandar, Tahsil Pussor, Distt. Raigarh Chhattisgarh (Petitioner No. 3 In The Writ Petition) 4. Jhanak Ram Nishad S/o Daityari Nishad Aged About 50 Years R/o Village Chhote Bhandar, Post Bade Bhandar, Tahsil Pussor, Distt. Raigarh Chhattisgarh (Petitioner No. 4 In The Writ Petition) 5. Vishram Nishad S/o Daityari Nishad Aged About 60 Years R/o Village Chhote Bhandar, Post Bade Bhandar, Tahsil Pussor, Distt. Raigarh Chhattisgarh (Petitioner No. 5 In The Writ Petition) 6. Dukhi Ram Nishad S/o Daityari Nishad Aged About 66 Years R/o Village Chhote Bhandar, Post Bade Bhandar, Tahsil Pussor, Distt. Raigarh Chhattisgarh (Petitioner No. 6 In The Writ Petition) BRIJMOHAN MORLE Digitally signed by BRIJMOHAN MORLE Date: 2025.12.16 17:51:51 +0530 2 7. Tejram S/o Tekram Aged About 45 Years R/o Village Chhote Bhandar, Post Bade Bhandar, Tahsil Pussor, Distt. Raigarh Chhattisgarh (Petitioner No. 7 In The Writ Petition) 8. State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of Revenue, Mantralaya, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur Chhattisgarh Current Address Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Naya Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh (Respondent No. 1 In The Writ Petition) 9. Collector/incharge Land Acquisition Officer Raigarh, District Raigarh Chhattisgarh (Respondent No. 2 In The Writ Petition) 10. Land Acquisition Officer/ S.D.O. Raigarh District Raigarh Chhattisgarh (Respondent No. 3 In The Writ Petition) 11. Jila Vyapar @ Udyog Kendra Raigarh Through Its Managing Director, Raigarh Chhattisgarh (Respondent No. 4 In The Writ Petition) 12. Adani Power Limited Raigarh Through Its Managing Director, Registered Office At 31, Jamadar Khana, Gwalior (M.P.) (Respondent No. 5 In The Writ Petition) --- Respondent(s) WA No. 950 of 2025 1. State of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of Revenue, Mantralaya, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (C.G.) Present Address- Department Of Revenue And Disaster Management, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur, District- Raipur (C.G.) (Respondent No. 01) 2. Collector/ Incharge Land Acquisition Officer Raigarh, District Raigarh (C.G.) (Respondent No. 02) 3. Land Acquisition Officer/ S.D.O Raigarh District Raigarh (C.G.) (Respondent No. 03) 4. Jila Vyapar @ Udyog Kendra Raigarh Through Its Managing Director, Raigarh (C.G.) (Respondent No. 04) ---Appellant(s) 3 versus 1. Vijay Kumar Patel S/o Late Indal Ram Patel Aged About 45 Years R/o Village Chhote Bhandar, Post Bade Bhandar, Tahsil Pussor, Distt. Raigarh (C.G.) (Petitioner No. 01) 2. Chandrashekhar Patel S/o Yuvraj Patel Aged About 52 Years R/o Village Chhote Bhandar, Post Bade Bhandar, Tahsil Pussor, Distt. Raigarh (C.G.) (Petitioner No.02) 3. Nohar Lal Patel S/o Jai Singh Patel Aged About 56 Years R/o Village Chhote Bhandar, Post Bade Bhandar, Tahsil Pussor, Distt. Raigarh (C.G.) (Petitioner No.03) 4. Jhanak Ram Nishad S/o Daityari Nishad Aged About 50 Years R/o Village Chhote Bhandar, Post Bade Bhandar, Tahsil Pussor, Distt. Raigarh (C.G.) (Petitioner No.04) 5. Vishram Nishad S/o Daityari Nishad Aged About 60 Years R/o Village Chhote Bhandar, Post Bade Bhandar, Tahsil Pussor, Distt. Raigarh (C.G.) (Petitioner No.05) 6. Dukhi Ram Nishad S/o Daityari Nishad Aged About 66 Years R/o Village Chhote Bhandar, Post Bade Bhandar, Tahsil Pussor, Distt. Raigarh (C.G.) (Petitioner No.06) 7. Tejram S/o Tekram Aged About 45 Years R/o Village Chhote Bhandar, Post Bade Bhandar, Tahsil Pussor, Distt. Raigarh (C.G.) (Petitioner No.07) 8. Adani Power Limited Raigarh Through Its Managing Director, Registered Office At 31, Jamadar Khana, Gwalior (M.P.) (Respondent No. 05) --- Respondent(s) WA No. 871 of 2025 Adani Power Limited, Through Its Authorised Signatory/ Representative Having Registered Office At Adani Corporate House Shantigram, Near Vishno Devi Circle S.G. Highway, Khodiyar Ahmadabad Gujarat Through Its Authorized Signatory Dhananjay Kumar Singh S/o Chandeshwar Prasad Singh, Aged 49 Years Authorized Signatory Of 4 The Adani Power Limited R/o Raj Niwas 57, Rukmani Vihar, Kotra Road, Raigarh (C.G.) ---Appellant(s) versus 1. Vijay Kumar Patel S/o Late Indal Ram Patel Aged About 45 Years R/o Village Chhote Bhandar Post Bade Bhandar Tahsil Pussor District- Raigarh, (C.G.) 2. Chandrashekhar Patel S/o Yuvraj Patel Aged About 52 Years R/o Village Chhote Bhandar Post Bade Bhandar Tahsil Pussor District- Raigarh, (C.G.) 3. Nohar Lal Patel S/o Jai Singh Patel Aged About 56 Years R/o Village Chhote Bhandar Post Bade Bhandar Tahsil Pussor District- Raigarh, (C.G.) 4. Jhanak Ram Nishad S/o Daityari Nishad Aged About 50 Years R/o Village Chhote Bhandar Post Bade Bhandar Tahsil Pussor District- Raigarh, (C.G.) 5. Vishram Nishad S/o Daityari Nishad Aged About 60 Years R/o Village Chhote Bhandar Post Bade Bhandar Tahsil Pussor District- Raigarh, (C.G.) 6. Dukhi Ram Nishad S/o Daityari Nishad Aged About 66 Years R/o Village Chhote Bhandar Post Bade Bhandar Tahsil Pussor District- Raigarh, (C.G.) 7. Tejram S/o Tekram Aged About 45 Years R/o Village Chhote Bhandar Post Bade Bhandar Tahsil Pussor District- Raigarh, (C.G.) 8. State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of Revenue, Revenue Mantralaya, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (C.G.) 9. Collector / Incharge Land Acquisition Officer Raigarh, District - Raigarh (C.G.) 10. Land Acquisition Officer / S.D.O. Raigarh, District Raigarh (C.G.) 11. Jila Vyapar @ Udyog Kendra Raigarh Through Its Managing Director, Raigarh, (C.G.) ---Respondent(s) 5 (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) For Appellant : Mr. Prafull N. Bharat, Senior Advocate, assisted by Mr. Kashif Shakeel, Advocate in WA No. 879 of 2025, Mr. Rajeev Shrivastava, Senior Advocate, assisted by Ms. Sakshi Chhabra, Advocate in WA No. 871 of 2025 and Mr. Praveen Das, Deputy Advocate General in WA No. 950 of 2025. For Respondent/s writ petitioner: Ms. Deepali Pandey, Advocate in WA Nos. 879 of 2025, 671 of 2025 & 950 of 2025. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru , Judge Judgment on Board Per Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice 15 .12.2025 1. Since all the writ appeals arise out of the same impugned order dated 14.08.2025 passed in WPC No. 6003 of 2010, they were clubbed together, heard analogously, and are being disposed of by this common judgment. 2. We have heard Mr. Prafull N. Bharat, learned Senior Advocate, assisted by Mr. Kashif Shakeel, learned counsel, appearing for the appellant in WA No. 879 of 2025; Mr. Rajeev Shrivastava, learned Senior Advocate, assisted by Mr. Kashif Shakeel in WA No. 871 of 2025, Mr. Praveen Das, learned Deputy Advocate General, appearing for the appellants/State in WA No. 950 of 2025 and for the respondent/State in WA Nos. 879 of 2025 and 871 of 2025; and Ms. Deepali Pandey, learned counsel, appearing for respondents/writ petitioner in all the appeals. 6 3. Also heard on I.A. No. 2 of 2025 (in WA No. 950 of 2025), which is application seeking condonation of delay. 4. Upon hearing the learned counsel for the parties and upon perusal of the reasons stated in the application for condonation of delay, we are of the considered view that sufficient cause has been shown. Accordingly, I.A. No. 2 of 2025 (in WA No. 950 of 2025) is allowed, and the delay of 61 days in filing WA No. 950 of 2025 is hereby condoned. 5. Learned Senior Advocate appearing for the appellant in WA No. 879 of 2025 submits that the appellant, Chhattisgarh State Industrial Development Corporation Limited (CSIDC), is a State Government undertaking entrusted with promoting, facilitating and accelerating industrial development in the State of Chhattisgarh, and was the beneficiary agency for whose purpose the land in question was acquired under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, “the Act of 1894”). It is submitted that respondent Nos. 1 to 7 were owners of agricultural land (hereinafter referred to as “the subject matter land”) situated at Village Chhote Bhandar, Tehsil Pusaur, District Raigarh (C.G.), which was acquired in accordance with the provisions of the Act of 1894. 6. It is further submitted that the State Government framed an Industrial Policy for the period 2009–2014, under which, considering the vast potential of the State in electricity generation and distribution, Chhattisgarh was envisaged as a “Power Hub”. Pursuant thereto, 7 power generation projects aggregating over 15,000 MW were approved in both the public and private sectors. District Raigarh was identified as a priority area for industrial investment, particularly for thermal power projects, and land situated in Villages Bade Bhandar, Chhote Bhandar, Amlibhauna and Sarwani, Tehsil Pusaur, District Raigarh, was proposed for acquisition, for which in-principle approval was granted on 27.10.2009. 7. A notification under Section 4(1) of the Act of 1894 was issued on 03.07.2010. Respondent No. 1 submitted objections under Section 5A on 02.08.2010, which were considered by the Sub-Divisional Officer- cum-Land Acquisition Officer, Raigarh, acting under delegated powers. Upon consideration, the objections were rejected on 26.08.2010 and recommendations were forwarded to the Collector, who, acting as the appropriate Government under delegated authority, approved issuance of the declaration under Section 6, which was published on 03.09.2010. Thereafter, respondent Nos. 1 to 7 filed WPC No. 6003 of 2010 challenging the notifications issued under Sections 4 and 6 of the Act. 8. Learned Senior Advocate further submits that during pendency of the writ petition, the appellant deposited the entire compensation amount from its own funds on 09.12.2010, whereafter a final award under Section 11 of the Act of 1894 was passed on 14.01.2011. Physical possession of the acquired land was taken by the State Government and handed over to CSIDC, which thereafter leased the land to Korba West Power Company Limited (now Adani Power 8 Limited) for establishment of a thermal power plant. The project, approved by the State Investment Promotion Board, has been operational for about 15 years, involving investment of thousands of crores of rupees and contributing substantially to industrial growth, power infrastructure and employment generation. It is also pointed out that out of several landowners affected by the acquisition, only seven landowners belonging to one family approached this Court. 9. It is submitted that the learned Single Judge, by judgment dated 14.08.2015, partly allowed the writ petition and set aside the acquisition proceedings only in respect of the lands of the seven writ petitioners, solely on the ground of alleged non-compliance with Section 5A of the Act of 1894, while upholding the acquisition as being for a public purpose. According to the appellants, such selective interference, despite vesting of land, payment of compensation, taking of possession, utilisation of land and crystallisation of third-party rights, is legally unsustainable and contrary to settled principles governing land acquisition, public interest, delay and laches. 10. Learned Senior Advocate appearing in WA No. 871 of 2025 reiterates that the respondents/writ petitioners never objected to the acquisition as such, and that their objections were confined only to the rate of compensation and demands concerning health, environment and rehabilitation, which are matters beyond the limited scope of enquiry contemplated under Section 5A of the Act of 1894. Nevertheless, the Land Acquisition Officer referred such demands to 9 the competent authority, which clarified that compensation and benefits would be governed by the Rehabilitation Policy, 2007, then in force in the State. 11. It is further submitted that even during the award proceedings, the petitioners were afforded an opportunity of hearing and reiterated the same grievances relating to compensation, which were duly considered by the Land Acquisition Officer. Any subsisting grievance, according to the appellants, could only have been pursued by seeking a statutory reference, and not by questioning the validity of the acquisition proceedings themselves. 12. Learned Deputy Advocate General appearing for the State in WA No. 950 of 2025 submits that the State relied upon two statutory notifications, namely: (i) Notification dated 06.03.1987, whereby powers of the Collector, including hearing of objections under Section 5A of the Act of 1894, were delegated to the Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue); and (ii) Notification dated 03.09.2003, whereby the Collector was vested with the powers of the appropriate Government for the purposes of Sections 4, 5A, 6 and 17 of the Act of 1894. 13. It is submitted that both notifications were in force at all relevant points of time and were never challenged by the writ petitioners. In terms of Section 5A(2) of the Act of 1894, objections were duly received, oral hearing was granted to the objectors, and the matter was processed by duly authorised officers acting within the scope of the delegated powers. 10 14. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondents/writ petitioners supports the impugned judgment and submits that the writ petition was rightly allowed on a limited and jurisdictional ground, namely non-compliance with the mandatory procedure prescribed under Section 5A(2) of the Act of 1894. It is contended that the findings recorded by the learned Single Judge are pure findings of law arising from admitted procedural facts and do not warrant interference in appellate jurisdiction. 15. It is further argued that Section 5A is not an empty formality, but embodies a valuable and substantive right, forming part of the constitutional guarantee under Article 300A read with Articles 14 and 19 of the Constitution of India. The statutory scheme mandates that objections must be heard, a reasoned report with recommendations must be prepared and forwarded, and the appropriate Government must independently apply its mind before issuing a declaration under Section 6 of the Act. 16. It is contended that in the present case, though objections were formally heard, no report or recommendation as contemplated under Section 5A(2) was forwarded to the appropriate Government, and the objections were mechanically rejected, resulting in issuance of the declaration under Section 6 without lawful satisfaction. 17. Reliance has been placed on the decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Nandeshwar Prasad v. State of U.P., AIR 1964 SC 1217 : (1964) 3 SCR 375; Munshi Singh v. Union of India, (1973) 2 11 SCC 337; Surinder Singh Brar v. Union of India, (2013) 1 SCC 403; Shiv Raj v. Union of India, (2014) 6 SCC 564; Kedar Nath Yadav v. State of West Bengal, (2004) 7 SCC 554; and Abhishek Gupta v. Haryana Urban Development Authority, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 643, to contend that violation of the mandatory procedure under Section 5A vitiates the acquisition proceedings, that mechanical or delegated satisfaction is impermissible, and that denial of reasoned consideration of objections amounts to breach of principles of natural justice. 18. 18. It is further submitted that the learned Single Judge exercised due judicial restraint by quashing the acquisition only qua the petitioners’ land, preserving the acquisition and award in respect of other landholders, and granting liberty to the State to recommence proceedings from the stage of Section 5A. 19. It is lastly urged that an award or vesting under Section 16 of the Act of 1894 cannot cure a foundational defect arising from non- compliance with Section 5A, and that any interference at the appellate stage would reduce the statutory right of objection to a hollow ritual. 20. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and considered their rival submissions made herein-above and also went through the record with utmost circumspection. 21. Having examined the entire record and the legal position governing the scope of objections under Section 5A of the Act of 1894, we are of the considered view that the learned Single Judge erred in setting aside the acquisition proceedings qua the writ petitioners. As 12 noted above, the objections raised by the writ petitioners were not directed against the acquisition as such or the existence of a public purpose, but were confined to issues relating to the rate of compensation, rehabilitation benefits, and health and environmental safeguards. Such matters are outside the limited statutory enquiry contemplated under Section 5A and are required to be addressed either at the stage of award or through a statutory reference under Section 18 of the Act of 1894. 22. It is undisputed that the writ petitioners were afforded an opportunity of hearing on their objections, that the objections were considered by the competent authority acting under validly delegated powers, and that the acquisition was otherwise completed by passing of an award, taking over of possession, and utilisation of the land for an industrial project serving a recognised public purpose. The acquisition has attained finality long ago, third-party rights have crystallised, and the project has been operational for several years. In such circumstances, interference with the acquisition proceedings on hyper- technical grounds—particularly when no prejudice has been demonstrated in relation to the acquisition itself—would be contrary to settled principles governing judicial review of completed land acquisitions. 23. Even assuming, for the sake of argument, that the objections were not dealt with in the manner now contended, the same would not vitiate the acquisition in the facts of the present case, where the 13 objections related solely to compensation and allied issues rather than the necessity or legality of the acquisition. The learned Single Judge failed to appreciate that Section 5A does not contemplate adjudication of claims relating to the adequacy of compensation or ancillary benefits. Any grievance in that regard is statutorily redressable only by invoking Section 18 of the Act of 1894. 24. Consequently, the impugned judgment and order dated 14.08.2015, insofar as it sets aside the notification issued under Section 6 of the Act, the order dated 26.08.2010 rejecting the objections under Section 5A, and the award dated 14.01.2011 qua the lands of the respondents/writ petitioners, cannot be sustained and are hereby set aside. 25. At the same time, in order to balance equities and safeguard the statutory rights of the respondents/writ petitioners, it is clarified that they shall be at liberty to seek a reference under Section 18 of the Act of 1894, if so advised, in respect of their grievances relating to the quantum of compensation or allied matters. Any such reference shall be considered on its own merits, uninfluenced by the present judgment, and without being rejected on the ground of limitation, the period during which the writ proceedings and the present appeals remained pending being excluded for that purpose. 26. In the result, all the writ appeals are allowed. The writ petition bearing WPC No. 6003 of 2010 stands dismissed, subject to the liberty granted to the respondents/writ petitioners under Section 18 of 14 the Act of 1894. 27. It is also relevant to note that this Court has already examined an identical challenge arising out of the same acquisition proceedings in WA No. 829 of 2025 and connected batch of writ appeals, where, on similar facts and legal submissions, the Court upheld the validity of the acquisition and interfered with the order of the learned Single Judge. The issues relating to the scope of objections under Section 5A, the effect of objections confined to compensation, vesting of land after award, crystallisation of third-party rights, and long lapse of time were comprehensively considered and decided therein and the same has also been allowed today itself with present appeals. Sd/- Sd/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Brijmohan