1 / 7 CGHC010006422020 2026:CGHC:28781 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 69 of 2020 Shafique Mohd. S/o Late Mohd. Ishaque Aged About 59 Years R/o Chandni Chowk, Muslim Ganj, Raigarh, Tehsil And District Raigarh Chhattisgarh. (However The Name Of The Petitioner Is Mohd. Shafique, But In Revenue Records, The Name Of The Petitioner Is Mentioned As Shafique Mohd. So The Petitioner Is Filing This Instant Petition Through The Name Shafique Mohd.), District : Raigarh, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Department Of Revenue And Disaster Management Mahanadi Bhawan, Naya Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - Collector Raigarh Revenue And Civil District Raigarh Chhattisgarh, District : Raigarh, Chhattisgarh 3 - Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue) And Land Acquisition Officer Raigarh, District Raigarh Chhattisgarh, District : Raigarh, Chhattisgarh 4 - Tehsildar Raigarh Revenue And Civil District Raigarh Chhattisgarh., District : Raigarh, Chhattisgarh Digitally signed by PRAVEEN KUMAR SINHA Date: 2026.07.13 10:58:37 +0530 2 / 7 5 - Anil Beriwal S/o Late Narsingh Beriwal R/o Village Sadar Bazar Raigarh, P.S. City Kotwali, District Raigarh Chhattisgarh., District : Raigarh, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner : Mr. Surfaraj Khan, Advocate For Resp. No. 1 to 4 : Mr. Atanu Ghosh, Dy. Govt. Advocate For Resp. No.5 : Mr. N.K. Malviya, Advocate S.B.: Hon'ble Shri Parth Prateem Sahu, Judge Order on Board 09/07/2026 1. Petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking following reliefs:- “10.1 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue a Suitable Writ (s), Order (s), Direction (S), by quashing the entire proceeding (Annexure P/1) drawn and passed in Land Acquisition Case No. A/82/2017-18/Regada (Anil Beriwal V/s. Shafique Mohd.), by the respondent no. 3 and to issue a suitable writ in the nature of prohibition for preventing an order or decision being made which if made would be subject to certiorari. 10.2 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to call the entire records from the court below for its kind perusal. 10.3 Any other relief, which may be suitable in the facts and circumstances of the case, may also be granted.” 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that Sub Divisional Officer-cum- Land Acquisition Officer, Raigarh has passed an award dated 17.05.2017 with respect to land bearing kh. No.153/2 3 / 7 admeasuring 0.020 hectares situated at Village – Regda, District- Raigarh. After passing of award, an application was submitted by respondent No.5 for withholding of amount of compensation deposited in the bank account of petitioner. Application was submitted before the Sub Divisional Officer-cum-Land Acquisition Officer Raigarh on 24.02.2018. From the pleadings made in the application it is appearing that allegation is made that petitioner has prepared the new rin-pustika by playing fraud and has obtained the amount of compensation and got it deposited in his bank account, of a sum of Rs.18,08,071/-. He submits that once the award has been passed, the Land Acquisition Officer or the Collector may make only clerical or arithmetical corrections to the award. Dispute with respect to title and ownership of property or the entitlement to receive compensation could not be decided invoking provision under Section 33 of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (for short “Act of 2013”) but under Section 64 read with Section 76 of the Act of 2013 specific provision is envisaged and therefore proceeding initiated by Sub Divisional Officer is bad in law. He also contended that even if the Land Acquisition Officer has to consider the application and to correct the award then also Land Acquisition Officer could have exercised the jurisdiction under Section 33 of the Act within the period of 6 months and not beyond that. In the case at hand, application for withholding the amount of compensation was filed by respondent No.5 only on 24.02.2018 i.e. after more than seven months and therefore Sub 4 / 7 Divisional Officer could not have drawn proceeding vide Annexure P-1. 3. Learned counsel for respondent No.5 would vehemently oppose submission of learned counsel for the petitioner and would submit that in the application which is filed along with writ petition there is clear mention that petitioner by forging old original rin-pustika i.e. Kisan Kitab had prepared the new rin-pustika in his name and thereby played fraud and committed forgery and has obtained amount of compensation of the land. 4. Learned counsel for the State would submit that Land Acquisition Officer has drawn the proceeding based on application submitted by respondent No.5. He, however, do not object in specific terms to the submission made by learned counsel for the petitioner based on provisions under Section 33, 64 and 76 of the Act of 2013. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and also perused the documents annexed along with writ petition. 6. The only question which is raised by learned counsel for the petitioner is with regard to exercise of jurisdiction by the Sub Divisional Officer- cum-Land Acquisition Officer after passing of an award, under Section 33 of the Act of 2013 to be bad in law. Provision under Section 33 of the Act of 2013 is relevant and therefore it is extracted below for ready reference: “33. Corrections to awards by Collector-(1)The Collector may at any time, but not later than six months from the date of award or where he has been required under the provisions of this Act to make a 5 / 7 reference to the Authority under section 64, before the making of such reference, by order, correct any clerical or arithmetical mistakes in either of the awards or errors arising therein either on his own motion or on the application of any person interested or local authority: Provided that no correction which is likely to affect prejudicially any person shall be made unless such person has been given a reasonable opportunity of making representation in the matter. (2)The Collector shall give immediate notice of any correction made in the award so corrected to all the persons interested. (3)Where any excess amount is proved to have been paid to any person as a result of the correction made under sub-section (1), the excess amount so paid shall be liable to be refunded and in the case of any default or refusal to pay, the same may be recovered, as prescribed by the appropriate Government.” 7. From bare perusal of the afore-mentioned provision would show that it talks of correction to be made to the award by the Collector. In case at hand, Sub Divisional Officer is exercising power of Land Acquisition Officer as the said power has been delegated to him. In the provision it is specifically mentioned that the correction can be made at any time but not later than six months from the date of award . In case at hand, undisputedly, award is dated 17.05.2017. Six months from date of passing award will come to an end on 17.11.2017. However, the application which is filed by respondent No.5 for withholding the amount of compensation deposited in the account of petitioner in the month of February 2018 which is beyond the period of 6 months. 6 / 7 8. The other ground which is raised by learned counsel for the petitioner is that even if the allegation made in the application has to be treated to be correct then also respondent No.5 is having the remedy under Section 64 read with Section 76 of the Act of 2013. The 9. Section 64 of the Act of 2013 provides that any person interested who has not accepted the award may, by written application to the Collector, require that the matter be referred by the Collector for determination of the Authority, as the case may be, with regard to measurement of the land, amount of compensation, the person to whom it is payable, the rights of rehabilitation and resettlement under Chapter V and VI . 10. Respondent No.5 could have invoked the provision under Section 64 of the Act of 2013 and could have filed appropriate application/proceeding before the appropriate authority or could have invoked any other remedy available to him under the law. 11.In the aforementioned facts of case, in particular considering the provision of Sections 33, 64 and 76 of the Act of 2013, I am of the considered view that respondent No.3 committed illegality in registering the case based on application submitted by respondent No.5 questioning the disbursement of amount of compensation after more than 6 months from the date of passing of award and therefore said proceeding is not sustainable. Accordingly, proceeding initiated by respondent No.3 vide Annexure P-1 is hereby quashed. Respondent No.5 would be at liberty to avail other remedy available under the law for redressal of his grievance in the facts of case. 12. As respondent No.5 has filed the application before the Land 7 / 7 Acquisition Officer on 24.02.2018, the authority while considering the said application shall keep in mind that aspect also i.e. filing of application on 24.02.2018. Sd/Sd/- (Parth Prateem Sahu) Judge Praveen