1 2026:CGHC:13-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WA No. 922 of 2025 Raj Rishi Bhatia S/o Lt. Shri H.C. Bhatia Aged About 71 Years R/o Om Kunj Anand Nagar Raipur C.G. ... Appellant versus 1 - The State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of Revenue, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Naya Raipur District- Raipur (C.G.) 2 - The Commissioner Raipur Division And Ex- Officio Secretary, To Govt. Of Chhattisgarh Raipur District- Raipur (C.G.) 3 - The Collector Raipur And Ex- Officio Deputy Secretary, To Govt. Of Chhattisgarh, Raipur District- Raipur (C.G.) 4 - The Sub Divisional Officer Cum Land Acquisition Officer- Arang/ Abhanpur, Raipur, District- Raipur (C.G.) 5 - The New Raipur Development Authority Through Its Chief Executive Officer, Raipur, District- Raipur (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) MANPREET KAUR Digitally signed by MANPREET KAUR Date: 2026.01.03 11:55:41 +0530 2 For Appellant(s) : Mr. A.N. Bhakta and Mr. Vivek Bhakta, Advocates. For Respondents No.1 to 4 : Mr. Shashank Thakur, Additional Advocate General. For Respondent No.5 : Mr. Rishab Bajaj holding the brief of Mr. Sumesh Bajaj, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Arvind Kumar Verma , Judge Order on Board Per Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice 02.01.2026 1. Heard Mr. A.N. Bhakta and Mr. Vivek Bhakta, learned counsel for the appellant as well as Mr. Shashank Thakur, learned Additional Advocate General, appearing for respondents No.1 to 4 and Mr. Rishab Bajaj holding the brief of Mr. Sumesh Bajaj, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.5 on I.A. No.03/2025, which is an application for condonation of delay of 12 days in filing the instant appeal. 2. For the reasons mentioned in the application I.A. No.03/2025 i.e. application for condonation of delay, the same is allowed and delay is condoned. 3. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the appeal is heard finally. 4. The present writ appeal is preferred assailing the order dated 20.08.2025 passed by the learned Single Judge in WP(C) No. 915/2012 (Raj Rishi Bhatia v. State of Chhattisgarh and Others), whereby, the petition filed by the writ petitioner / 3 appellant herein was dismissed. 5. It has been pointed out by learned counsel, appearing for the appellant as well as learned counsel appearing for the respondents that in an identical matter, this Bench had dismissed WA No. 807/2025 (Prakashchand Bhatia vs. State of Chhattisgarh & Others) vide order dated 10.11.2025, observing as follows : “15. Having given anxious consideration to the submissions advanced on behalf of the parties, and upon a thorough scrutiny of the pleadings, documents and the reasoning assigned by the learned Single Judge, we are of the considered view that no case for interference is made out. The learned Single Judge has meticulously examined the validity of the acquisition proceedings. the applicability of the urgency clause, the issuance of the relevant notifications and the effect of the award already passed. The conclusions recorded therein are supported by the material on record and are in harmony with the settled principles governing judicial review in matters of land acquisition. 16. The appellant/writ petitioner has not been able to demonstrate any procedural irregularity of a substantial nature, nor have they shown any breach of mandatory provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 that would vitiate the proceedings. The contention regarding non-taking of possession, as also the reliance placed upon the subsequent order dated 4 11.03.2022, does not undermine the legality of the acquisition already concluded. 17. The plea founded upon Section 18 of the Act has likewise been rightly repelled, and we find no reason to take a different view. In the absence of any material to establish perversity, arbitrariness, or violation of statutory mandate, the grounds urged in the writ appeal are unsustainable. The impugned order dated 20.08.2025 does not suffer from any error warranting interference in appellate jurisdiction. 18. Consequently, the writ appeal fails and is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.” They further submit that since the facts and issue involved in the present case is identical to that of WA No. 807/2025, this appeal may also be dismissed in the same terms. 6. Having considered the rival submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and having gone through the materials on record, it is evident that the facts and issue involved in this appeal is identical to WA No. 807/2025, this Court deems it appropriate not to take a view other than what has been taken in WA No. 807/2025. 7. Accordingly, the present appeal is dismissed in terms of the order dated 10.11.2025 passed in WA No. 807/2025. Sd/- Sd/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Manpreet