1 2026:CGHC:25679 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 3114 of 2024 1 - Smt. Seema Sharma W/o Lalit Sharma Aged About 51 Years Resident Of Bilha, Tahsil Bilha, District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary- Revenue Department, Mantralaya Mahanadi Bhawan, Naya Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 2 - Collector Bilaspur District Bilaspur, District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. 3 - Land Acquisition Officer/sub Divisional Officer (Revenue) Bilaspur, District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. 4 - The National Highway Authority Of India Ltd. Through Project Director Bilaspur, United Abhilasha Parisar New Bus Stand, Tifra, Bilaspur, District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Banhiman Roy, Advocate. For Respondent(s)/State : Mr. Soumitra Kesharwani, Panel Lawyer. For Respondent No. 4 : Mr. Dhiraj Kumar Wankhede, Advocate. Hon’ble Mr. Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Order on Board 23/06/2026 RAGHVENDRA JAT Digitally signed by RAGHVENDRA JAT 2 1. By way of this petition, the petitioner has prayed for following reliefs:- “(i) That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent authorities consider the representation and to make of compensation of payment subject Agricultural land as per market value in accordance with provision of the Agricultural land Acquisition Act with 18% interest within stipulated time, in the interest of justice. (ii) Any other relief which may be suitable in the facts and circumstances of the case, may also be granted.” 2. Brief facts of the case, is that, the petitioner is the absolute owner and lawful possessor of the agricultural land bearing Khasra No. 352/5, admeasuring 0.25 acre, situated at Village Mudhipar, P.H. No. 09, Revenue Circle Bilaspur, Tahsil Bodri, District Bilaspur (Chhattisgarh). The petitioner and his family members have been cultivating the said agricultural land for several years and were primarily engaged in growing paddy and seasonal vegetables thereon, which constituted the sole source of livelihood for the entire family. It is submitted that, as revealed from the demarcation report, the aforesaid agricultural land of the petitioner has been utilized and acquired by the respondent authorities for the construction of a National Highway without initiating acquisition proceedings in accordance with the provisions of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, 3 Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, and without payment of any compensation whatsoever to the petitioner. The petitioner most respectfully submits that despite the acquisition and utilization of his land for a public purpose, the respondent authorities have failed to determine or disburse the compensation legally payable to the petitioner, nor have they extended the benefits of rehabilitation and resettlement as mandated under the Act of 2013. The petitioner has repeatedly approached the competent authorities on several occasions requesting payment of fair compensation and grant of statutory rehabilitation benefits; however, no heed has been paid to his genuine grievances, and no effective action has been taken by the respondent authorities. The arbitrary, illegal, and high-handed action of the respondent authorities, in depriving the petitioner of his constitutional and statutory right to receive just and fair compensation for the acquisition of his agricultural land, is wholly contrary to the mandate of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, as well as the settled principles of law. Left with no efficacious alternative remedy, the petitioner has been constrained to invoke the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. During the pendency of the present writ petition, the respondent authorities have initiated partition proceedings before the competent Revenue Court in purported compliance with the decree passed by the learned Trial Court. It is 4 respectfully submitted that although the said partition proceedings may continue, no final order in respect of the subject land deserves to be passed until the rights of the petitioner regarding compensation and acquisition are duly adjudicated by this Court. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the respective parties jointly submit that the controversy involved in the present case essentially relates to the identity and location of the land in question. It is contended that if a fresh demarcation of the subject land is conducted by the competent revenue authorities strictly in accordance with law, the allegations and counter-allegations raised by the parties would stand conclusively resolved. It is further submitted that only after such demarcation is undertaken would it be possible to ascertain the true factual position and to determine whether the land belonging to the petitioner has in fact been utilized for the construction of the National Highway, whereafter any consequential dispute, if it survives, may be considered and decided in accordance with law. 4. Having considered the aforesaid submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties, this Court deems it appropriate to direct the Collector, Bilaspur, to constitute a team of competent revenue officials comprising the Tahsildar, the Revenue Inspector, and the concerned Patwari for the purpose of conducting a fresh demarcation of the petitioner's land bearing Khasra No. 352/5, admeasuring 0.25 acre, situated at Village Mudhipar, P.H. No. 09, Revenue Circle Bilaspur, Tahsil Bodri, District Bilaspur 5 (Chhattisgarh). The object of such demarcation shall be to ascertain whether any portion of the petitioner's land has been utilized for the construction of the National Highway. The parties shall remain present and extend full cooperation during the demarcation proceedings. The Collector, Bilaspur, shall ensure that the aforesaid team is constituted forthwith and that the demarcation exercise is completed within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order. Upon completion of the demarcation, if it is found that the petitioner's land has, wholly or in part, been utilized for the construction of the National Highway from Bilaspur to Raipur, the concerned authorities, including the National Highways Authority of India and the competent authority under the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, shall initiate appropriate proceedings for determination and payment of compensation together with all consequential statutory benefits, including rehabilitation and resettlement benefits, if admissible, and shall pass a reasoned and speaking order strictly in accordance with law. 5. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the rival claims of the parties. The present directions have been issued solely with a view to ascertain the correct factual position in the light of the allegations made by the petitioner and the specific denial thereof by the respondent authorities. The directions are intended only to facilitate a fair, 6 transparent, and lawful determination of the controversy and shall not be construed as an adjudication of the rights of either party on merits. 6. It is expected that the State authorities as well as other concerned respondents shall act with promptitude and due diligence in complying with the directions issued hereinabove. Upon completion of the demarcation proceedings, the competent authorities shall take all consequential steps and pass appropriate orders, strictly in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible and preferably within a further period of four months thereafter. 7. With the aforesaid direction, the writ petition is disposed of. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Raghu Jat