1 2026:CGHC:22992 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR REVP No. 158 of 2026 Ksk Water Infrastructures Private Limited Through- Its Authorised Signatory Having Office At Akaltara, Post Office At Akaltara District- Janjgir-Champa ... Petitioner(s) Versus 1 - Rewati Raman Singh S/o. Shri Durgeshwar Singh Aged About 70 Years R/o. Village Birra, Tehsil Bamhanindih, Dist.- Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) 2 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through- The Secretary Commerce And Industries Department Of Mahanadi Bhavan, Nava Raipur District- Raipur (C.G.) 3 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through- Its Secretary Department Of Revenue And Disaster Management Mahanadi Bhavan, Nava Raipur District- Raipur (C.G.) 4 - Collector Janjgir-Champa District- Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) 5 - Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue) And Land Acquisition Officer Champa, Dist.- Janjgir-Champa, (C.G.) 6 - Tehsildar Bamhanindih, Tehsil Bamhanindih, Dist.- Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Ashish Shrivastava. Senior Advocate with Mr. Udit Khatri, Advocate For Respondent No. 1 : Mr. Surfaraj Khan, Advocate For Respondent No. 2 to 6 : Mr. Atanu Ghosh, Dy. G.A. HON’BLE SHRI JUSTICE PARTH PRATEEM SAHU Order on Board 14.05.2026 1. This review petition is filed seeking review of order dated 04.12.2025 2 passed in WPC No. 6299 of 2024. 2. Learned senior counsel for the review petitioner would submit that the petitioner in the writ petition has filed the writ petition suppressing material fact that the petitioner-company was ever ready to pay the reasonable compensation against his land which has come within the premises of the company along with other lands, however, it could not be materialized and without informing the petitioner-company, the writ petition was filed and obtained the order. It is contention of counsel for the petitioner that even today the company is ready to pay just compensation to the respondent No. 1, however, in view of the order dated 04.12.2025 passed by this Court, Collector is not giving any heat to the submission and the proposal made by the company in the acquisition proceedings, therefore, the application / review petition submitted by the petitioner be allowed. 3. Counsel for the respondent No. 1 would oppose this submission and would submit that the order which is sought to be reviewed, this Court has not considered anything on merits of the claim of the petitioner therein, but for the fact that some letter issued by the Collector to the Sub-Divisional Officer was not further processed by the respondent No. 4 and accordingly, the writ petition was disposed of directing respondent No. 4 to proceed in terms of the letter dated 11.09.2025 of the Collector to respondent No. 4. 4. I have heard counsel for the parties and perused the order dated 04.12.2025. 5. The operative portion of the order dated 04.12.2025 passed in WPC No. 6299 of 2025 is extracted below for ready reference; “4. On due consideration of submission made by learned counsel for 3 respective parties as also the report Annexure P-3 submitted before the Collector/respondent no. 3 and the memo Annexure P-4 dated 11.09.2025 forwarded by Collector/respondent no. 3 to respondent no. 4, respondent no. 4 is directed to proceed in accordance with the direction issued by Collector, Janjgir-Champa on the memo dated 11.09.2025 and to submit its report to Collector/respondent no. 3 informing petitioner preferably within in a further period of six months from the date of receipt of copy of this Order.” 6. It is not the case of the petitioner that the letter which is letter dated 11.09.2025 which is produced by respondent No. 1 / writ petitioner along with the writ petition is concocted or fabricated document. This Court have considered the submission of the counsel for the petitioner therein based on the documents that on the representation / application submitted by the respondent No. 1, nature of grievance raised before the Collector, the Collector had issued a letter on 11.09.2025 to respondent No. 4 to look into the grievance and to inform the Collector about the proceedings initiated by Sub Divisional Officer. 7. In this writ petition, this Court has not considered anything on merits of the claim of the petitioner. In the aforementioned facts of the case and hence, I do not find any ground to accept the prayer made by the petitioner in this review petition. 8. Accordingly, the review petition being devoid of merit, it is dismissed. Sd/- (Parth Prateem Sahu) JUDGE Saurabh SHUBHAM DEY Digitally signed by SHUBHAM DEY