1 2026:CGHC:26844 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 2328 of 2022 1 - Omprakash Singh Thakur S/o Late Babban Singh Thakur Aged About 42 Years R/o Mahasti Ward, Bhatapara, District : Balodabazar- Bhathapara, Chhattisgarh --- Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Department Of Irrigation, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - Collector District Balodabazar Bhatapara Chhattisgarh. 3 - Executive Engineer Department Of Irrigation, Balodabazar, District : Balodabazar-Bhathapara, Chhattisgarh ... Respondents (Cause-title taken from the Case Information System) ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- For Petitioner(s) :- Ms. Mandavi Bhardwaj, Advocate For State :- Mr. Amit Nayak, P.L. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- SB- Hon'ble Shri Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Order On Board 01.07.2026 1. Heard. VISHAKHA BEOHAR Digitally signed by VISHAKHA BEOHAR 2 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the land belonging to the petitioner, bearing Khasra No. 66, admeasuring 3.65 acres, was acquired by the respondent authorities. It is submitted that the said land stood recorded in the name of the petitioner's grandfather, Late Suraj Singh Thakur, at the time of acquisition. Learned counsel further submits that despite the acquisition of the land, no compensation has been paid to the petitioner or his predecessor-in-interest till date. It is contended that the petitioner had served two legal notices upon the respondent authorities demanding payment of the lawful compensation; however, despite receipt of the said notices, no action has been taken and the compensation remains unpaid. Being left with no other efficacious remedy, the petitioner has approached this Court by filing the present writ petition seeking appropriate directions for payment of the compensation in accordance with law. 3. Per contra, learned State counsel submits that the petitioner as well as the other landowners whose lands were acquired were duly awarded compensation by the Land Acquisition Officer vide award dated 29.08.1978. It is submitted that the name of the petitioner's predecessor-in-interest, Late Suraj Singh Thakur, specifically finds mention in the award annexed with the petition, wherein compensation of Rs. 11,715/- was awarded and disbursed in his favour. Learned State counsel further submits that after receipt of the compensation, neither Late Suraj Singh Thakur nor any of his legal heirs raised any grievance or dispute 3 with regard to the acquisition proceedings or the payment of compensation. It is contended that the present claim has been raised for the first time in the year 2021, after an inordinate and unexplained delay of nearly 44 years, despite the fact that compensation had already been paid to the petitioner's predecessor. In these circumstances, it is submitted that the writ petition is hopelessly barred by delay and laches and deserves to be dismissed. 4. Upon this, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there is not a single document placed on record by the respondents evidencing the actual disbursement or payment of the compensation amount to the petitioner's predecessor-in-interest. It is contended that although the respondents have relied upon the award dated 29.08.1978 to contend that compensation was awarded, mere passing of the award does not establish that the amount was in fact paid. In the absence of any documentary proof, such as a payment receipt, acquittance, voucher, or any other record evidencing disbursement of the compensation, the respondents' contention cannot be accepted. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 6. From the perusal of the record, it appears that the land of the petitioner was acquired way back in the year 1978, and thereafter compensation was duly calculated by the competent authority. It 4 further appears from the documents on record that, vide award dated 29.08.1978, after due calculation, the compensation amount was also paid in favour of the petitioner's predecessor-in- interest, namely Late Suraj Singh Thakur. 7. It is further evident that after 29.08.1978, neither Late Suraj Singh Thakur nor his legal heirs raised any grievance with regard to non-payment of compensation. Subsequently, after a lapse of more than four decades, the present application seeking compensation has been filed without any cogent explanation for the inordinate delay. The petition also does not disclose any material to dispute the fact that compensation was duly assessed and paid to the predecessor-in-interest of the petitioner, namely Late Suraj Singh Thakur. 8. Having considered the rival submissions and perused the record, it appears that the compensation in respect of the acquired land was assessed and paid to the predecessor-in-interest of the petitioner, namely Late Suraj Singh Thakur, vide award dated 29.08.1978. It further appears that neither the petitioner nor his predecessor-in-interest raised any claim or grievance with regard to non-payment of compensation for a considerably long period thereafter. 9. In view of the aforesaid factual position, and in the absence of any material on record to show that the compensation was not received by the petitioner's predecessor or that any objection was 5 raised at the relevant time, this Court is of the opinion that the grievance raised after an inordinate delay of more than four decades cannot be entertained. Accordingly, the writ petition, being devoid of merit and suffering from gross delay and laches, is liable to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed. 10.No order as to costs. sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Vishakha