1 2026:CGHC:22778 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 2453 of 2026 Hanuman Prasad Shukla S/o Nand Kishore Shukla Aged About 82 Years R/o Block A Flat No. 602, Avani Garden, Daldal Seoni Mowa, Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) ... Petitioner versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Through Secretary, Deartment Of Urban Administration And Development, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Naya Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) 2 - Collector Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) 3 - Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue) Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) 4 - Raipur Development Authority, Through Its Chief Executive Officer, Iind Floor, Bhakt Mata Karma, Vyavasayik Parisar, New Rajendra Nagar, Raipur (C.G.) 5 - Executive Engineer, Raipur Development Authority, IInd Floor, Bhakt Mata Karma, Vyavasayik Parisar, New Rajendra Nagar, Raipur (C.G.) ... Respondents (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner : Mr. Sushobhit Singh, Advocate For State/Respondents No.1 to 3 : Mr. Anand Dadariya, Dy. A.G. For Respondents No.4 & 5 : Mr. Pankaj Agrawal, Advocate YOGESH TIWARI Digitally signed by YOGESH TIWARI Date: 2026.05.15 17:27:09 +0530 2 Hon’ble Shri Amitendra Kishore Prasad, Judge Order on Board 14.05.2026 1. By filing the present writ petition, the petitioner calls in question the legality and validity of the order dated 22.12.2023 passed by respondent No.4, whereby despite admitting utilization and possession of a portion of the petitioner’s land bearing Khasra No.67/1 admeasuring 0.110 hectare situated at Village Raipura, Tahsil and District Raipur (C.G.) for construction of road, the respondent authorities have neither initiated acquisition proceedings nor passed any award in accordance with law and have further threatened coercive action against the petitioner in respect of the remaining land, thereby allegedly violating the petitioner’s constitutional right to property guaranteed under Article 300A of the Constitution of India. The petitioner has prayed for following relief(s):- “10.1 That, this Hon'ble court may kindly be pleased to call for the entire records of the case. 10.2 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly issue appropriate writ, order, direction and quash the impugned letter / order dated 22.12.23 (Annexure P/1). 10.3 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly issue appropriate writ, order, direction and issue directions in the nature of mandamus directing 3 the respondent state authorities to perform their mandatory statutory duties as per the RFCTLARR Act 2013 and acquire the petitioner's land bearing Khasra No.67/1 measuring an area of about 0.110 hectare situated at village Raipura District Raipur (C.G.) and pass a final award and disburse compensation to the petitioner. 10.4 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue appropriate writ, order, direction directing the respondent authorities to grant the benefit as per the Act of 2013 including market value, multiplication factor, interest and solatium and the respondents may be further directed to pass a final award and disburse compensation within stipulated period of time. 10.5 Any other relief / reliefs which may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case may also be allowed.” 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the action of the respondent authorities in utilizing the petitioner’s land without following due process of law is wholly arbitrary, illegal and violative of Article 300A of the Constitution of India. He would submit that the petitioner is the recorded bhoomiswami and in possession of land bearing Khasra No.67/1 admeasuring 0.5740 hectare situated at Village Raipura, Tahsil and District Raipur (C.G.). It is contended that without initiating any acquisition proceedings under the applicable land acquisition laws and 4 without payment of any compensation, the respondent authorities proceeded to construct a public road over a portion of the petitioner’s land admeasuring approximately 0.110 hectare. Learned counsel submits that the petitioner, upon noticing encroachment and construction activities over his land, approached the authorities seeking demarcation, pursuant to which spot inspection and demarcation proceedings were conducted in presence of the revenue authorities as well as representatives of the respondent departments. 3. Learned counsel would further submit that though the demarcation report records that a road has been constructed over a portion of the petitioner’s land, the authorities have wrongly attempted to conclude that the said construction was undertaken by the Raipur Development Authority (RDA), without there being any proper adjudication or supporting material establishing the exact agency responsible for acquisition or utilization of the land. It is submitted that even the internal notesheets of the respondent authorities acknowledge that land admeasuring about 0.110 hectare out of Khasra No.67/1 belonging to the petitioner has been utilized for road construction and that acquisition proceedings were required to be initiated. Despite such categorical findings, no acquisition proceedings have been commenced till date nor has any compensation been paid to the petitioner. 5 4. Learned counsel submits that the petitioner is not pressing any larger relief with regard to removal of the road or restoration of possession at this stage and confines his prayer only to the extent that if the land of the petitioner has in fact been utilized, occupied or acquired by the RDA or any other State authority for construction of the road, the petitioner be granted just and fair compensation strictly in accordance with law after proper determination of the acquired area. 5. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent–Raipur Development Authority (RDA) submits that the respondent authority has no objection if a fresh demarcation of the land in question is undertaken in accordance with law so as to ascertain the exact extent of land, if any, utilized for construction of the road. It is further submitted that the respondent–RDA is willing to cooperate in the demarcation proceedings in coordination with the revenue authorities and that appropriate consequential steps, in accordance with law, may thereafter be taken depending upon the outcome of such demarcation. Learned counsel further submits that proper identification and verification of the land is necessary before fastening any liability with regard to acquisition or payment of compensation. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 6 7. Considering the matter in its entirety, particularly the rival submissions advanced by learned counsel appearing for the parties, the material available on record, the demarcation proceedings conducted earlier, as well as the stand taken by the respondent–RDA that it is willing to undertake a fresh demarcation for proper ascertainment of the land utilized for construction of the road, this Court is of the considered opinion that ends of justice would be adequately served by directing a fresh and comprehensive demarcation of the land in question so as to conclusively determine whether any portion of the petitioner’s land bearing Khasra No.67/1 admeasuring 0.5740 hectare situated at Village Raipura, Tahsil and District Raipur (C.G.) has in fact been utilized, occupied or acquired for the purpose of road construction by the respondent authorities. 8. Accordingly, the respondent–RDA is directed to conduct a fresh demarcation of the land in question strictly in accordance with law and in presence of the petitioner or his authorized representative so as to ensure transparency and fairness in the proceedings. The concerned Tahsildar, Raipur is also directed to extend full assistance and cooperation to the respondent–RDA in carrying out the aforesaid exercise, including verification of revenue records, spot inspection, measurement and identification of the exact portion of land, if any, utilized for the purpose of construction of the road. The demarcation proceedings shall be 7 conducted after providing due notice and opportunity of participation to all concerned stakeholders. 9. It is further directed that the petitioner shall submit an appropriate representation/application before the concerned Tahsildar, Raipur along with a certified copy of this order and all relevant documents including revenue records, earlier demarcation report and supporting materials, within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. Upon such application being submitted, the respondent–RDA in coordination with the concerned revenue authorities shall undertake and complete the entire exercise of fresh demarcation expeditiously and preferably within a period of four months thereafter in accordance with law. 10. It is made clear that in the event the fresh demarcation proceedings reveal that any portion of the petitioner’s land has been utilized, occupied or acquired for the purpose of road construction by the respondent authorities including the RDA, the competent authority shall take consequential steps for grant of appropriate compensation to the petitioner strictly in accordance with the applicable provisions of law governing acquisition and compensation. The determination and payment of compensation shall be undertaken after due verification of the extent of land so utilized and in accordance with the prevailing statutory framework. 11. Needless to observe, this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the rival claims of the parties with regard to title, 8 extent of encroachment or exact nature of possession and all such issues are left open to be examined by the competent authority during the course of the fresh demarcation proceedings. 12. With the aforesaid observations and directions, the instant writ petition stands disposed of. 13. There shall be no order as to costs. Sd/- Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Yogesh