1 2026:CGHC:22347 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 4938 of 2021 1 - Kamraj Verma, S/o Samaru Verma, Aged About 45 Years R/o Village Watgan, Tahsil Palari, District Balodabazar - Bhatapara Chhattisgarh, District : Balodabazar-Bhathapara, Chhattisgarh 2 - Bhuribai, W/o Samaru Ram Verma, Aged About 62 Years R/o Village Watgan, Tahsil Palari, District Balodabazar - Bhatapara Chhattisgarh,, District : Balodabazar-Bhathapara, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh, Through - The Secretary, Department Of Water Resources, Mahanadi Reservoir Project, Pahse - Ii, Work Division, Raipur Chhattisgarh 2 - Executive Engineer, Water Resources Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Post And Police Station - Mandir Hasaud, Raipur Chhattisgarh 3 - Collector, Balodabazar - Bhatapara Chhattisgarh 4 - Land Acquisition Officer And Sub - Divisional Officer, Arang, Raipur Chhattisgarh, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Varun Sharma, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Ms. Shailja Shukla, Government Advocate Single Bench : Hon'ble Shri Justic e Parth Prateem Sahu Order on Board 12.05.2026 ABHIGYA SAXENA Digitally signed by ABHIGYA SAXENA 2 1. The petitioners have filed this petition seeking for the following relief(s):- “1. This Hon'ble Court may be kind enough to direct the respondent Collector to provide the remuneration/ compensation to the petitioner's families at the earliest. 2. This Hon'ble Court may be kind enough to direct the respondent authorities to provide employment to one member of the petitioners' families as per the Rehabilitation and Resettlement Policy of the State Government. 3. This Hon'ble Court may be pleased to pass any other order (s) /direction (s) as this Hon'ble Court deems fit, looking into the facts and circumstances of the case.” 2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners’ land was affected by the Samoda Diversion Project. He submits that the lands of the petitioners, forming part of page No. 27 of the writ petition, as prepared by the concerned Patwari of Halka No. 20, mentioning the Khasra numbers as 385/8, 858/10, 859/11, 858/13, 859/14, 858/14, and 859/15. The Collector, Balodabazar District Bhatapara, also issued a public notice in this regard, published in the newspaper dated 22.02.2018, mentioning the area of the lands owned by the petitioners along with others. He contended that the notice itself mentions that Respondent No.2 was considering the purchase of the lands, the description of 3 which is mentioned therein. The purchase of the land was to be made by the respondent authorities under the Mutual Consent Land Purchase Policy, 2016 (in short, “Policy of 2016”). After gaining knowledge regarding the proposed purchase of the land through the public notice dated 22.02.2018, the petitioners immediately submitted an objection before the Collector, Balodabazar, on 12.03.2018. However, no decision has been taken, and the land of the petitioners has been utilized by the respondents for the said project. He further contended that the petitioners were not intending to sell the land; however, since the respondent authorities have utilized the land owned by the petitioners, the respondents be directed to pay compensation to the petitioners in accordance with the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (in brevity, “Act of 2013”), i.e., the law relating to acquisition prevailing on the date of acquisition of the petitioners’ land. 3. Ms. Shailja Shukla, learned G.A. for the State, opposed the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioners and submitted that it is not the case of the petitioners, that they were unwilling to sell the land under the Policy of 2016 which can be culled out from pleadings in writ petition. She further submitted that proper care had been taken by the respondent authorities to award compensation under the Policy of 2016. It was also contended that, after publication of the public notice, the amount 4 of compensation payable under the Policy of 2016 was calculated at ₹2,81,37,289/- for payment to the persons named therein. The compensation would be paid as soon as the petitioners execute the sale deed. She further contended that the objection was not submitted by the petitioners within the prescribed time mentioned in the public notice, i.e., within 15 days from the date of its publication. Thereafter, the respondent authorities proceeded in accordance with Clause 14 of the Policy of 2016, and therefore, there is no illegality or arbitrariness in the act of the respondent authorities. 4. I have heard counsel for the parties and perused the documents placed on record. 5. The ownership of the petitioners over the land forming part of the public notice dated 22.02.2018 is not disputed. The name of petitioner No. 1 is mentioned at Serial No.11 of the said public notice along with the description and nature of the land. The public notice specifically mentions that Respondent No.2 was considering the purchase of the lands mentioned therein, including the land belonging to the petitioners along with that of other persons. 6. From perusal of the public notice dated 22.02.2018, it appears that objections were required to be raised within a period of 15 days. Petitioners submitted an objection/representation on 12.03.2018 stating that they were not consenting for the sale of the land under the Policy of 2016, mentioning therein that the 5 petitioners and their family were dependent upon the yield from the said land for the purpose of their livelihood. They also explained the reasons for the short delay in submitting their objection, stating that they could not obtain a copy of the policy under which the respondent authorities were proposing to purchase the land. 7. A copy of the Policy of 2016 has been placed on record by the respondents as Annexure R/1. The headings of the policy and its relevant contents are extracted hereunder:- " आपसी सीहमति सी भूमिम ्ቅय नीति, 2016 राज्य सराकारा का वि भि्ቐ वि ोሙ, उप्ቅोሰ/सቝኋओं का उनका अधोसराचन विनोሰण ए  वि कास परिरायजनओं का वि्ቅयन् यन का लि#ए सोሰय-सोሰय परा विनज$ %मिोሰ का आ श्यकाता पड़ता$ है,। %-अजन का ्ቚवि्ቅय ोሰ/ #ोሙन # अवितारिराक्ता सोሰय औरा #ोሙता का बचन का दृमि4 स शासकाय परिरायजनओं का विनधोरिराता सोሰय मिधो ोሰ/ वि्ቅयቝኌन् ता कारान हैता7 ्ቚविताफ# का 7ोሙतान काराका %- धोराका का आपस$ सहैोሰविता स %मिोሰ ्ቚप्ता का ज सकाता$ है,। अनका अ सरा परा विनज$ %मिोሰ धोराका उपराक्ता ्ቚयजन का लि#य अपन$ %मिोሰ राज्य शासन का वि ्ቅय कारान ोሰ/ रुलिच राखता है<, क्यविका ्ቚस्तावि ता अधोसराचन विनोሰण, वि कास परिरायजनओं आदि? का त् रिराता वि्ቅयन् यन स ቝኋन$य ቌኔ्ቔ का वि कास स7विनभिCता हैकारा हैD का विन लिसय का अनका सोሰजिजका- 6 आቕኌGHका # ्ቚप्ता हैता है<। सG है$ %मिोሰ वि ्ቅय का यहै वि काल्प उन्है/ ्ቚवि्ቅयत्ोሰका स7ोሙोሰता, सोሰय का बचता वि ्ቅय ोሰ%ल्य का शा$्ቈ ्ቚቝኌप्ता आदि? काराण स $ आकाቧኌLHता काराता है,। आपस$ सहैोሰविता स राज्य शासन ቛኋरा %मिोሰ धोराका स %मिोሰ ्ቅय कारान काई परिराቝኌቝኋविताय ोሰ/ ?न पቌኔ का सG- सG ቤኋपका #काविहैता ोሰ/ $ #कारा$ हैता है,। 2. अताQ सवि धोन का राज्य स%च$ का वि Lय ्ቅोሰका- 18 ( %मिोሰ अताराण) का शाቝኌक्ताय का ्ቚयोሙ काराता हुए राज्य शासन ቛኋरा स जविनका विहैता का परिरायजनओं का वि्ቅयन् यन हैता7 आपस$ सहैोሰविता स %मिोሰ ्ቅय कारान का न$विता बनए जन का विनणय लि#य ोሙय है,। राज्य सराकारा विनज$ %धोराका का आपस$ सहैोሰविता स विनम्नन7सरा आपस$ सहैोሰविता स %मिोሰ ्ቅय न$विता" (Consent Land Purchase Policy) जरा$ काराता$ है, :- 1. xxxxx 2. xxxxx 14. विनयता अ मिधो ोሰ/ ्ቚप्ता आपभिTय का आधोरा परा का#क्टरा, यदि? %मिोሰ का खविVता धोराणमिधोकारा (defective title) पता है,, ता है ऐस$ %मिोሰ का ्ቅय कारान का लि#ए अ्ቇसरा नहैY हैोሙ। जरा$ स जविनका स%चन का अ मिधो का अ सन ताका यदि? काई आपभिT ्ቚप्ता नहैY हैता$ है,, नराज्य सराकारा का 7 सबमिधोता वि ोሙ/उप्ቅोሰ/ सቝኋ का पቌኔ ोሰ/ %मिोሰ ता का#क्टरा %- धोराका स ्ቅय हैता7 अ्ቇसरा हैोሙ। 19. xxxxx 20. xxxxx” 8. The policy itself is the Land Purchase Policy, 2016, which contemplates purchase of land through mutual consent, also known as the Consent Land Purchase Policy. From the title of the policy itself, it is abundantly clear that the purchase can be made only with the consent of the landowner(s). 9. The submission of learned counsel for the respondent/State that no objection was raised within the specified time cannot, in the opinion of this Court, be accepted, more so when the objection invited under the public notice pertains to the dispute regarding the title of the lands mentioned therein and concerns with the ownership of the said lands as specified in the public notice. The relevant portion of the notification is also extracted hereinbelow for ready reference: “ उपराक्ता स?ቝኌHता %मिोሰ का स् त् का सबधो ोሰ/ विकास$ ቤኋቝኌक्ता / सቝኋ य अन्य विकास$ ቤኋቝኌक्ता का काई आपभिT है ता है इस स जविनका स%चन का ्ቚकाशा का विताG का 15 दि? स का $तारा स् ताQ अG  अपन ቛኋरा अमिधोका\ ता ቤኋቝኌक्ता का ोሰध्योሰ स आधोरा सविहैता ोሰरा सोሰቌኔ लि#खिखता आपभिT ्ቚस्ता7ता कारा सकाता है,।” 10. In the case at hand, the petitioners’ objection is not with regard to the title of any person or the recording of ownership; rather, 8 their objection is that they are neither inclined nor willing to sell their land under the Policy of 2016. In the aforementioned facts and circumstances of the case, the submission of learned counsel for the State that the petitioners have not submitted objections within time specified as called for under the public notification is not sustainable. Clause 14 of the Policy of 2016, upon which learned counsel for the State has relied upon in support of her contention regarding non-submission of objections within the specified time, also specifically deals with cases relating to “defective title.” 11. In view of the aforementioned discussions, the contents of the public notice, Clause 14 of the Policy of 2016, and further considering that the public notice is dated 22.02.2018 and that the objection was submitted by the petitioners within a short time thereafter, i.e., on 12.03.2018, the objection raised by the State that objection is not submitted within 15 days is repelled being unsustainable. No other submission is made by the counsel for the State as to under what law or which provision objection was belated. 12. It is not in dispute that the land of the petitioners has been utilised by the respondent authorities for the purpose of construction of the Samoda Diversion Project. 13. In the aforementioned facts and circumstances of the case, if the State Government has utilised the land of the petitioners for a public purpose, then the petitioners are entitled to claim 9 compensation in accordance with the law. On the said date, the acquisition of land and the award of compensation to the land losers/landowners were governed by the provisions of the Act of 2013 as well as the Rehabilitation Policy issued by the State Government prevailing at the relevant time. 14. In view of the aforementioned discussions, the writ petition is allowed in part. The respondent authorities are directed to initiate proceedings for acquisition of the land of the petitioners, which has been utilised for the purpose of the Samoda Diversion Project, under the Act of 2013, following due process of law, and to grant compensation accordingly. 15. Let the proceedings be initiated by the respondent authorities within a period of three months from today, and the same shall be concluded within a further period of six months from the date of initiation of the proceedings. Certified Copy as per rules. Sd/- (Parth Prateem Sahu) Judge Saxena