1 2026:CGHC:1614 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 3602 of 2022 1 - Balram Singh Gond S/o Late Ghurau Ram Aged About 51 Years R/o Ward No. 10, Purani Basti Katghora, Tahsil Katghora, District Korba Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioner(s) 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, Korba, District Korba Chhattisgarh. 3 - Sub Divisional Officer-Cum-Land Acquisition Officer, Katghora, District Korba Chhattisgarh. 4 - Branch Manager, Punjab National Bank, Katghora, District Korba Chhattisgarh. 5 - Kaushal Tendulkar, Sub Divisional Officer, Revenue, Katghora, District Korba Chhattisgarh. 6 - Sonit Meriya, The-Then Tahsildar, Katghora, Presently Posted In Collector Office, Korba, District Korba Chhattisgarh. 7 - Dashmat Bai Gond W/o Ful Singh Gond Aged About 68 Years D/o Ghurau, R/o Village Baksara, Post Pantora, Tahsil Baloda, District : Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh 8 - Basant Bai W/o Balam Singh Aged About 47 Years D/o Ghurau R/o Village Tiwarta, Tahsil Deepka, District : Korba, Chhattisgarh 9 - Indrapal Singh S/o Chandrabhan Singh Aged About 29 Years R/o Village Jurali, Tahsil Pondi Uproda, District : Korba, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner : Mr. SRJ Jaiswal, Advocate 2 For State : Mr. Abhishek Gupta, Panel Lawyer For R/4 : Mr. Sudhanshu Upadhyay, Advocate For R/6 : Mr. Sandip Kumar Pandey, Advocate For R/7 to 9 : Mr. Rajendra Tripathi, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Narendra Kumar Vyas Order on Board 12.01.2026 1. The petitioner has filed the present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India assailing the memo dated 26.05.2022 passed by the Contempt Authority and Sub-Divisional Officer (R), pursuant to which the compensation amount of ₹79,35,656/- deposited in his account maintained at Punjab National Bank, Katghora Branch, has been apportioned among six persons. Out of the said amount, five shares have been disbursed to the private respondents and one-sixth has been retained in the petitioner’s account as his share. 2. The brief facts are that the land of the petitioner bearing Khasra No. 52/2, admeasuring 0.146 hectare, P.H. No. 08, Village Katghora, was acquired by the National Highways Authority of India for widening of National Highway No. 111 under the Bharatmala Project. The competent authority initiated Land Acquisition Case No. 31/A-82/2018-19 and, vide award dated 15.07.2019, determined compensation to the sum of ₹79,35,656/-, which was deposited by NHAI in the petitioner’s aforesaid bank account. Thereafter, vide memo dated 17.03.2020, the amount was withheld. The Tahsildar submitted its report on 08.04.2022, stating that Dashoda Bai, Dashmat Bai, 3 Basant Bai, Santoshi Bai and Indrapal Singh are also descendants of the petitioner’s father. The competent authority directed the bank to apportion the compensation into six equal shares. Consequently, the shares of the five aforesaid persons were released and one-sixth was retained in the petitioner’s account. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner has filed the present petition. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that once the award has been passed, the competent authority has become functus officio and can not alter or modify it, except for correction of arithmetical errors. On this premise, he seeks quashing of the memo dated 26.05.2022 and would place reliance on the decision of this Court in W.P.(C) No. 665 of 2019 (Mahesh Nachrani & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors.). 4. Per contra, learned counsel for the private respondents would submit that the order dated 26.05.2022 does not amount to modification or recall of the award but is only an order of apportionment among the persons found entitled to receive compensation, and therefore, no interference is warranted and would pray for dismissal of the writ petition. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 6. It is not in dispute that after passing the award, the competent authority cannot modify or recall the same. However, in the present case, the quantum of compensation has not been altered, only its apportionment has been directed. The scheme of 4 the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (for short, “the Act, 2013”) specifically contemplates such apportionment in Sections 75 and 76 with particulars of apportionment and disputes relating thereto. Section 64 of the Act, 2013 provides Reference to Authority and it is extracted below:- (1) Any person interested who has not accepted the award may, by written application to the Collector, require that the matter be referred by the Collector for the determination of the Authority, as the case may be, whether his objection be to the measurement of the land, the amount of the compensation, the person to whom it is payable, the rights of Rehabilitation and Resettlement under Chapters V and VI or the apportionment of the compensation among the persons interested: Provided that the Collector shall, within a period of thirty days from the date of receipt of application, make a reference to the appropriate Authority: Provided further that where the Collector fails to make such reference within the period so specified, the applicant may apply to the Authority, as the case may be, requesting it to direct the Collector to make the reference to it within a period of thirty days. (2) The application shall state the grounds on which objection to the award is taken: Provided that every such application shall be made-- (a) if the person making it was present or represented before the Collector at the time when he made his award, within six weeks from the date of the Collectors award; (b) in other cases, within six weeks of the receipt of the notice from the Collector under section 21, or within six months from the date of the Collectors award, whichever period shall first expire: Provided further that the Collector may entertain an application after the expiry of the said period, within a further period of one year, if he is satisfied that there was sufficient cause for not filing it within the period specified in the first proviso. 7. In the case in hand, the petitioner is aggrieved with the apportionment of the compensation amount. Further, disputed 5 facts are involved in the case with regard to determination of entitlement which requires appreciation of evidence and materials on record, which cannot be effectively undertaken in writ jurisdiction. 8. Accordingly, the petitioner is directed to file an application before the Collector raising his dispute within fifteen days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The Collector shall, within a further period of thirty days, refer the matter to the competent authority constituted under Section 51 of the Act, 2013, which shall decide the same, after granting due opportunity of hearing and leading of evidence to the petitioner and the private respondents, preferably within six months. The entitlement to the compensation shall remain subject to the final outcome of the proceedings initiated by the competent authority. 9. With the aforesaid observations and directions, the writ petition stands disposed of. Sd/- (Narendra Kumar Vyas) Judge kishore KISHORE KUMAR DESHMUKH Digitally signed by KISHORE KUMAR DESHMUKH Date: 2026.01.20 14:43:54 +0530