1 2026:CGHC:2677-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WA No. 19 of 2026 1. Dayawati W/o Khilawan Aged About 61 Years (Original Petitioner No. 4) R/o Village Parsada, Post Paloud, Tehsil Arang, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2. Maan Singh S/o Panchram Aged About 36 Years (Original Petitioner No. 7) R/o Village Parsada, Post Paloud, Tehsil Arang, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh 3. Laxmichand S/o Rambagas Chandrakar Aged About 55 Years (Original Petitioner No. 9) R/o Village Parsada, Post Paloud, Tehsil Arang, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh ... Appellant(s) versus 1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Dept. Of Housing And Environment, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Naya Raipur Chhattisgarh Pin 492002 (Original Respondent No. 1) 2. District Collector Collectorate, Raipur, Chhattisgarh (Original Respondent No. 2) 3. Naya Raipur Development Authority Now Naya Raipur Atal Nagar Vikas Pradhikaran, Through Its Chief Executive Officer, Paryavas BRIJMOHAN MORLE Digitally signed by BRIJMOHAN MORLE Date: 2026.01.16 19:53:03 +0530 2 Bhawan, North Block, Sector 19 Atal Nagar, 492002 Chhattisgarh (Original Respondent No. 3) 4. Land Acquisition Officer/ Sub Divisional Officer Tehsil Aarang - Abhanpur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh (Original Respondent No.4) ...Respondent(s) (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) For Appellants : Ms. Shalini Gera & Ms. Anushree Rajput, Advocates. For Respondent/State : Mr. Dharmesh Shrivastava, Deputy Advocate General. For Respondent No. 3 : Mr. Rishabh Bajaj, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Sumesh Bajaj, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, Judge Judgment on Board Per Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice 16 .01.2026 1. Heard Ms. Shalini Gera and Ms. Anushree Rajput, learned counsel for the appellants as well as Mr. Dharmesh Shrivastava, learned Deputy Advocate General, appearing for the State and Mr. Rishabh Bajaj, learned counsel holding the brief of Mr. Sumesh Bajaj, learned counsel, appearing for respondent No. 3 on I.A. No. 2 of 2026, which is an application for condonation of delay of 33 days in filing the present appeal. 3 2. For the reasons mentioned in the application I.A. No. 2 of 2026 i.e. application for condonation of delay, the same is allowed and delay is condoned. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the appeal is heard finally. 3. The present intra Court appeal has been filed by the appellants against the order dated 10.09.2025 passed by the learned Single Judge in WPC No. 1010 of 2014 (Dayawati & Others vs. State of Chhattisgarh & Others), whereby the writ petition filed by the appellants/writ petitioners has been dismissed by the learned Single Judge. 4. It has been pointed out by learned counsel, appearing for the appellants as well as learned counsel appearing for the respondents that in an identical matter, this Bench had dismissed WA No. 807/2025 (Prakashchand Bhatia vs. State of Chhattisgarh & Others) vide order dated 10.11.2025, observing as follows : “15. Having given anxious consideration to the submissions advanced on behalf of the parties, and upon a thorough scrutiny of the pleadings, documents and the reasoning assigned by the learned Single Judge, we are of the considered view that no case for interference is made out. The learned Single Judge has meticulously examined the validity of the acquisition proceedings. the applicability of the urgency clause, the issuance of the relevant notifications and the effect of the award already passed. The conclusions recorded therein are supported by the material on record and are in 4 harmony with the settled principles governing judicial review in matters of land acquisition. 16. The appellant/writ petitioner has not been able to demonstrate any procedural irregularity of a substantial nature, nor have they shown any breach of mandatory provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 that would vitiate the proceedings. The contention regarding non-taking of possession, as also the reliance placed upon the subsequent order dated 11.03.2022, does not undermine the legality of the acquisition already concluded. 17. The plea founded upon Section 18 of the Act has likewise been rightly repelled, and we find no reason to take a different view. In the absence of any material to establish perversity, arbitrariness, or violation of statutory mandate, the grounds urged in the writ appeal are unsustainable. The impugned order dated 20.08.2025 does not suffer from any error warranting interference in appellate jurisdiction. 18. Consequently, the writ appeal fails and is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.” They further submitted that since the facts and issue involved in the present case is identical to that of WA No. 807 of 2025, this appeal may also be dismissed in the same terms. 5. Having considered the rival submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and having gone through the materials on record, it is evident that the facts and issue involved in this appeal is identical to WA No. 807 of 2025, this Court deems it appropriate not to take a 5 view other than what has been taken in WA No. 807 of 2025. 6. Accordingly, the present appeal is dismissed in terms of the order dated 10.11.2025 passed in WA No. 807 of 2025. Sd/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Brijmohan