1 2025:CGHC:8544-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WA No. 128 of 2025 1 - Krishna Kumar S/o Purushottam Sahu Aged About 54 Years R/o Sarojani Chowk, Near Dena Bank, Ward No. 3, Kurud, Tahsil Kurud, District Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh. 2 - Balram Sahu S/o Purushottam Sahu Aged About 52 Years R/o Sarojani Chowk, Near Dena Bank, Ward No. 3, Kurud, Tahsil Kurud, District Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh. ... Appellants versus 1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of Revenue And Disaster Management, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar Nawa Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 2 - Collector District Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh. 3 - Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue) And Land-Acquisition Officer, Kurud, District Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh. 4 - Union of India Through Secretary, Ministry Of Road Transport And Highways, Transport Bhawan-1, Parliament Street, New Delhi-110001 5 - Project Director National Highways Authority Of India (N H A I), Implemention Unit, Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent(s) For Appellants : Shri Govind Dewangan and Shri Rupendra Dewangan, Advocates. For Respondent UOI : Ms. Shweta Rai on behalf of Shri Ramakant Mishra, Dy. Solicitor General. For State : Shri S.S. Baghel, Dy. Govt. Advocate. For NHAI : Ms. Aishley Shrivastava on behalf of Shri Dhiraj K. Wankhede, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Justice Ramesh Sinha, CJ Hon’ble Shri Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, J Digitally signed by INDRAJEET SAHU Date: 2025.02.24 16:51:40 +0530 2 Order on Board 19.02.2025 Per, Ramesh Sinha, CJ. 1 The present writ appeal has been filed by the appellants/petitioners against the impugned order dated 03.12.2024 passed by learned Single Judge in WPC No.4427 of 2024 whereby the writ petition filed by the petitioners is dismissed. 2 Brief facts of the case are that, the petitioners are land owners. Their land situates at Village Kurud, Tehsil - Kurud, District - Dhamtari, (C.G.). The respondents initiated proceedings for acquisition of the land owned by the petitioners along with others under the provisions of the National Highways Act, 1956 (in short, the Act, 1956) for construction/widening of National Highway No. 30 (Old No. 43). Final award was passed on 12.07.2016 by the Respondent and amount of compensation under the land acquisition proceedings was determined under the provisions of Section 3 (G) of the Act, 1956. The Respondent No. 3 thereafter, passed the impugned amended/modified award dated 22.11.2016 by modifying/amending the final award dated 12.07.2016 with respect to the petitioners and reduced the quantum of compensation determined in the final award. 3 Against the said order of respondent No.3, the petitioners approached before learned Single Judge alleging that after passing of the award, the Land-Acquisition Officer/Respondent No. 3 has no power to review, amend or modify the final award passed under the provisions of Section 3 (G) of the Act, 1956 and therefore, the impugned order dated 22.11.2016 amending the award is without jurisdiction. It was also submitted that issue with regard to the powers of the Land-Acquisition 3 Officer/Respondent No. 3 to review, amend or modify the final award passed under the provisions of Section 3 (G) of the Act, 1956 has already been adjudicated and decided in the case of Mahesh Nachrani & Ors. Vs. Union of India & Ors. decided on 14.09.2020 in WP (C) No. 665/2019 wherein, the Court held that the Land-Acquisition Officer has no power to review, amend or modify the final award passed under the provisions of Section 3 (G) of the Act, 1956. 4 Learned Single Judge, after considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case as well as material produced before it, dismissed the petition on the ground of delay and laches. Hence this writ appeal. 5 We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the records. 6 Be that as it may, the cause of action arose on 22.11.2016 when compensation amount was reduced whereas, writ petition was filed by the petitioners after inordinate delay of more than 6 years that too without explaining each and every days delay caused in filing writ petition. Merely projecting the petitioners to be rustic villagers having no knowledge about court proceeding and limitation period would not suffice. It is not a case of petitioners that no proper acquisition proceeding was drawn before acquiring their land for the said purpose. Acquisition proceeding was done in accordance with rules governing the field, however, by way of amendment the compensation was reduced. It is not a case that petitioners were unaware of amended award. If the people like the petitioners do not promptly raise a dispute for settlement of their grievance and seek for redressal of dispute that too after a period of more than 6 years, it cannot be said that the 4 petitioners were legitimately pursuing their claim all this period and then filed the petition after an inordinate delay of 6 years. Thus, learned Single Judge has rightly dismissed the petition on the ground of delay laches. 7 In writ appeal no interference is warranted in the order passed by the Single Judge unless palpable infirmities are being shown in the impugned order. From perusal of entire material placed on record, we do not find any such infirmities or irregularities in the order passed by learned Single Judge warranting interference of this court. 8 Therefore, we do not find any sufficient ground to interfere with the findings recorded by learned Single Judge and the writ appeal is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice inder