1 2026:CGHC:22098 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 2318 of 2026 Hemlata Agrawal W/o Shri Ashok Kumar Aged About 52 Years R/o Village -Katghora, Tahsil -Katghora, District Korba (C.G.) ... Petitioner versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Its Secretary Department Renenue And Disaster Management Mahanadi Bhawan Naya Raipur, District- Raipur (C.G.) 2 - Collector Korba, District -Korba (C.G.) 3 - Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue) Pali, District -Korba (C.G.) 4 - Tehsildar Pali, Tehsil -Pali, District Korba (C.G.) 5 - National Highways Authority Of India Through Its Project, Piu Bilaspur, Bilaspur Division District Bilaspur (C.G.) ... Respondents (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner : Mr. Surfaraj Khan, Advocate For State/Respondents No.1 to 4 : Mr. Shobhit Mishra, Deputy Government Advocate For Respondent No.5 : Mr. Dhiraj Kumar Wankhede, Advocate Hon’ble Shri Amitendra Kishore Prasad, Judge Order on Board 11.05.2026 1 By filing the present petition, the petitioner challenges the arbitrary and illegal action of respondent No.5 (National Highways) in YOGESH TIWARI Digitally signed by YOGESH TIWARI Date: 2026.05.12 10:40:36 +0530 2 dismantling the old NH-130 (Katghora–Bilaspur) route and simultaneously excavating and interfering with the petitioner’s private land bearing Khasra Nos. 708/1 and 708/6, situated at Village Kutelamuda, District Korba (C.G.), thereby obstructing access to the petitioner’s land and depriving him of lawful possession without initiation of any acquisition proceedings, payment of compensation, or adherence to due process of law, despite repeated representations made before the competent authorities. The petitioner has prayed for following relief(s):- “10.1 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue suitable writ (s), order (s), direction (s) by commanding/directing the Collector Korba and respondent No.5 (National Highways) to decide the representations (Annexure P/2) preferred by the petitioner for payment of suitable compensation to the petitioner, strictly in accordance with law, within a time frame, in the interest of justice. 10.2 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to call the entire records from the respondents authorities for its kind perusal. 10.3 Any other relief, which may be suitable in the facts and circumstances of the case, may also be granted.” 2 Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the present petition is directed against the arbitrary and illegal action of the respondents, particularly respondent No.5/NHAI, in forcibly 3 digging and dismantling the old alignment of NH-130 (Katghora– Bilaspur) and simultaneously excavating and interfering with the petitioner’s private land bearing Khasra Nos. 708/1 and 708/6 situated at Village Kutelamuda, District Korba (C.G.), thereby causing complete obstruction to ingress and egress of the petitioner to his own land. It is submitted that the petitioner is a lawful owner and in settled possession of the said land, which is abutting the old road and is the only access route available to the petitioner. 3 It is further submitted that the respondents have proceeded to interfere with and virtually take over portions of the petitioner’s private land without initiating any proceedings under the Land Acquisition Act or any other enabling law, and without issuance of any notice, demarcation, or opportunity of hearing. Learned counsel submits that no acquisition proceedings have been drawn by the competent authority, nor has any award been passed or compensation determined or paid to the petitioner for the alleged use or taking over of the land, thereby rendering the entire action ex facie illegal and unconstitutional. 4 Learned counsel further submits that despite repeated representations made before the Collector, Korba and the authorities of respondent No.5/NHAI, no action has been taken to redress the grievance of the petitioner, and instead, the respondents have continued with the illegal excavation and 4 demolition work, resulting in irreparable loss and hardship to the petitioner. It is submitted that the conduct of the respondents is wholly arbitrary, high-handed, and in complete violation of the principles of natural justice as well as the settled law that no person can be deprived of his property except by authority of law. 5 It is also submitted that the action of respondent No.5/NHAI amounts to a colourable exercise of power, as the authorities are attempting to utilise private land for public purpose without following the mandatory procedure of acquisition, thereby bypassing statutory safeguards and constitutional protections guaranteed to the petitioner. Such action, it is submitted, cannot be sustained in the eyes of law and is liable to be interfered with by this Court. 6 In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned action deserves to be declared illegal and arbitrary, and appropriate directions deserve to be issued restraining the respondents from further interference and for restoration of the petitioner’s land and/or initiation of proper acquisition proceedings with payment of due compensation in accordance with law. 7 On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.5/NHAI submits that the present petition is misconceived and devoid of merit as the grievance raised by the petitioner, on a proper appreciation of facts, appears to relate merely to an 5 alleged obstruction of easementary right of access rather than any compulsory acquisition of land. It is submitted that there is no material placed on record to demonstrate that any portion of the petitioner’s land has been acquired or taken possession of by the answering respondent in accordance with law. 8 It is further submitted that the petitioner’s assertion regarding acquisition of land is wholly baseless and unsupported by any documentary evidence, as no acquisition proceedings have been initiated or completed qua the subject land. Learned counsel submits that the petitioner is attempting to mischaracterize the routine public infrastructure work undertaken by NHAI as illegal interference, whereas the activities being carried out are strictly within the permissible scope of highway development and maintenance. 9 It is also submitted that the claim of the petitioner essentially pertains to alleged disturbance of access route, which at best may give rise to an easementary dispute and cannot be equated with compulsory acquisition of land or violation of property rights. In absence of any proof of acquisition, demarcation, or dispossession, the allegations levelled by the petitioner are stated to be speculative and untenable in law. 10 Accordingly, learned counsel for respondent No.5/NHAI submits that no case is made out for interference by this Court, as the 6 petition is based on misconceived facts and incorrect legal assumptions, and thus deserves to be dismissed. 11 I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the documents available with the writ petition. 12 Considering the matter in its entirety, this Court is of the view that the grievance raised by the petitioner with regard to alleged interference with her land and access rights, as well as the stand of respondent No.5/NHAI that no acquisition has been undertaken and the issue, if any, pertains to easementary rights, require examination at the appropriate level by the competent authority. 13 Accordingly, without entering into the merits of the rival contentions and without expressing any opinion on the validity or otherwise of the claims raised by either party, this Court deems it appropriate to direct that the concerned Collector, District Korba shall consider and decide the application/representation of the petitioner in accordance with law. 14 The Collector, Korba shall afford due and proper opportunity of hearing to all concerned parties, including the petitioner as well as respondent No.5/NHAI, and shall take into consideration all relevant documents and materials that may be placed before him. The authority concerned shall thereafter pass a reasoned and speaking order in accordance with law. 7 15 The entire exercise shall be completed expeditiously, preferably within a period of 45 days from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. 16 It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case and all issues are left open to be decided by the competent authority independently, uninfluenced by any observations made hereinabove. 17 With the aforesaid observations and directions, the instant writ petition stands disposed of. 18 There shall be no order as to costs. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Yogesh