1 CGHC010153612020 2026:CGHC:32373 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 1594 of 2020 Nirmala Agrawal, W/o Shri Madanlal Agrawal, Aged About 54 Years, R/o Village Pithora, Tehsil Pithora, District Mahasamund (C.G.) ... Petitioner versus 1 - National Highway Authority of India Ltd. Through Project Director, Raipur Unit, Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) 2 - State Of Chhattisgarh, Through The Collector, Mahasamund, District Mahasamund (C.G.) 3 - The Land Acquisition Officer-Cum-Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue) / Competent Authority Pithora, Tehsil Pithora, District Mahasamund (C.G.) 4 - Tehsildar Pithora, District Mahasamund (C.G.) ... Respondents For Petitioner : Mr. Surfaraj Khan, Advocate. For Respondent No.1 : Mr. Dhiraj Kumar Wankhede, Advocate. For State/respondents No.2 to 4 Mr. Malay Jain, Panel Lawyer. SB: Hon'ble Shri Parth Prateem Sahu, Judge Order on Board 28/07/2026 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 GOURI MUDALIAR Digitally signed by GOURI MUDALIAR Date: 2026.07.30 14:37:28 +0530 2 quashing the impugned order dated 02/03/2020 (Annexure P-1), passed by S.D.O. (R) Pithora and further be pleased to direct the respondent authorities, particularly respondent no.3 to decide the representations (part of Annexure P-5 & Annexure P- 9) following the consequential (s) benefits by granting compensation to the petitioner, as per the 1st award dated 16/12/2013 (Annexure P-2), within time frame. 10.2 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to call the entire land acquisition proceedings relating to the subject matter of the case. 10.3 Any other relief which this Hon'ble Court thinks fit & proper in favour of the petitioner, in the interest of justice & equity.” 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is the owner and title holder of land bearing khasra No.843/1, measuring 0.180 & Khasra No.843/2 measuring 0.120 (Total 400 square metre). The land owned by the petitioner was subject matter of acquisition. After completion of the proceedings of the acquisition, award was passed on 16/12/2013 and then again another award dated 24/05/2014 was passed in land acquisition case no.12/A-82, year 2012-13. When the petitioner was not paid the compensation as computed under the first award dated 16/12/2013, the petitioner has filed writ petition bearing number 3091/2019 which was disposed of vide order dated 28/01/2020 permitting the petitioner to submit representation before the Land Acquisition Officer-cum- Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue), 3 Pithora, District Mahasamund. Petitioner submitted representation which was decided vide Annexure P-1 and held that the claim of the petitioner can be decided by the authority under Section 3(G)(5) of the National Highways Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act of 1956’). He contended that the decision of the Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue) is erroneous, the respondent/State be directed to pay the compensation as computed in first award dated 16/12/2013. 3. Learned counsel for the respondent/National Highway Authority of India would submit that the petitioner herself in the first petition filed before this Court in WPC No.3091/2019 has obtained the order for submitting the representation before the Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue) and had submitted the representation accordingly on 6/02/2020 in which the petitioner has claimed the higher amount of compensation of 1.29 crores and therefore the remedy available to the petitioner is under Section 3(G)(5) of the Act of 1956. He also contended that the Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue) while deciding the representation has considered the grievance raised by the petitioner and have come to the conclusion that initially the land bearing khasra no.843 was subject matter of acquisition as published in the notification issued under Section 3(A) of the Act of 1956, however subsequently in the award the khasra No.843 has been divided into 843/1 and 843/2. He also contended that if the case of the petitioner is that after passing 4 of the award, no second award could have been passed, he could have challenged the same, but no such relief is claimed in this writ petition. Hence, the said submission cannot be accepted. 4. Learned counsel for the State also opposes the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner and has adopted the submission of learned counsel for the respondent/National Highway Authority of India. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents available on record. 6. From the documents enclosed along with the writ petition, it appears that the petitioner has enclosed the award dated 16/12/2013 and 24/05/2014. In the award dated 16/12/2013, the land bearing khasra No. 843/1 and 843/2 have been separately mentioned it’s area as 200 square metre and 400 square metre respectively. In the award dated 24/05/2014 the khasra number mentioned is 843 and the area is mentioned as 600 square metre. In the second award, the Land Acquisition Officer has considered that the award is to be passed based on the notification issued under Section 3(A) and published in the gazette notification by the Central Government and accordingly the description of the properties subject matter of writ petition is mentioned therein. In the writ petition, petitioner has not specifically pleaded and objected with regard to the description 5 of the land as khasra no.843 in the notification published under Section 3 (A) to be, the land bearing khasra no.843/1 and 843/2. 7. From the order Annexure P-8 dated 28/01/2020 passed in WPC No.3091/2019 it is appearing that the petitioner has made a prayer for a direction to respondent No.3 therein the Land Acquisition Officer to decide the representation which was ordered and further the petitioner after passing of the said order has submitted a fresh representation on 06/02/2020 mentioning the observation made by the High Court in WPC No.3091/2019. The grievance of the petitioner is with respect to the quantum of the compensation or re-quantification of the compensation to be paid to the petitioner. He in fact is seeking enhancement of compensation. The representation was decided by the Land Acquisition Officer pursuant to the order passed by the High Court in the writ petition filed by the petitioner herself and after discussing in detail with regard to the description of land mentioned in the 3(A) notification, 3(D) notification and the description of the land mentioned in the award dated 16/12/2013, further considering the nature of the grievance raised in the representation, Land Acquisition Officer came to the conclusion that the petitioner is having the remedy available under Section 3(G)(5) of the Act of 1956 to file proceedings before the competent authority. 6 8. In the aforementioned facts of the case, when the petitioner has not questioned passing of the two awards in the first writ petition on the ground if any available to her and have raised the grievance with regard to the disbursement of the amount of compensation and in the representation has pleaded with regard to the quantum of compensation to be in higher side, in the opinion of this Court, no error has been committed by the Land Acquisition Officer in passing of the order Annexure P-1 dated 02/03/2020 or deciding the representation observing that the petitioner is having the remedy under Section 3(G)(5) of the Act of 1956. 9. For the foregoing discussion, I do not find any merit in this case and accordingly it is dismissed. However, the petitioner will be at liberty to submit the application before the Sub Divisional Officer for disbursement of the amount of compensation for which the petitioner is entitled for as per award dated 24/05/2014 and if such an application is submitted, the concerned authority shall consider and take decision and disburse the amount of compensation following due process of law, if it is not already disbursed, within a further period of four months from the date of receipt of this order. Sd/- (Parth Prateem Sahu) Judge gouri