1 2026:CGHC:21128 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 853 of 2020 Sandip Kedia S/o Shri J.P. Kedia Aged About 45 Years R/o Old High Court Road, Gandhi Chowk, Bilaspur, Tehsil And District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh., District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner. Versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary Revenue And Rehabilitation Department, Mantralaya, Naya Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - National Highway Authority Through The Project Director, Bilaspur, District - Bilaspur Chhattisgarh., District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh 3 - Additional Commissioner / Arbitrator Bilaspur, District - Bilaspur Chhattisgarh., District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh 4 - Collector Bilaspur, District- Bilaspur Chhattisgarh., District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh 5 - Sub- Divisional Officer / Competent Authority Land Acquisition Officer, Bilaspur, District - Bilaspur Chhattisgarh., District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) (cause title downloaded from CIS Periphery) For Petitioner : Mr. Prithvi Raj Sahu, Adv on behalf of Mr. Prateek Sharma, Advocate. For Res No.1, 3, 4 & 5 : Ms. Vartika Shrivastava, Panel Lawyer. For Respondent No.2 : Mr. Dhiraj Kumar Wankhede, Advocate. Digitally signed by AJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI DN: cn=AJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI, ou=HIGH COURT, o=HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, st=Chhattisgarh, c=IN 2 (Hon’ble Shri Justice Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi ) Order on Board 06/05/2026 1. Heard. 2. At the outset, learned counsel for respondent No.2 submits that the impugned order dated 06/12/2019 (Annexure-P/1) passed by the Upper Commissioner/Arbitrator, Bilaspur Division, Bilaspur in Case No. 181A- 82/2018-19, has been challenged before the Principal District Judge, Bilaspur in MJC No. 180/2020. He also submits that in the said case, though notice has been issued to the petitioner herein but it has not been served yet. Counsel for respondent no. 2 is also ready to supply a copy of the said case to the petitioner. Learned counsel also submits that the said case has been fixed for hearing on 11/05/2026. 3. In view of the above submission, counsel for the petitioner has received the notice/copy of the aforesaid MJC case from counsel for respondent No.2. He also submits that, at this stage, he wants to withdraw this petition with liberty to file afresh if the occasion so arises. 4. Counsel for the respondents have not opposed the above submission. 5. Having regard to the aforesaid submissions, this writ petition is disposed of, reserving liberty in favour of the petitioner as prayed for. Sd/- (Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi) Judge Ajay