1 CGHC010310292026 2026:CGHC:35467 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 4175 of 2026 1 - Nilesh Kumar Jaiswal S/o Basant Lal Jaiswal Aged About 45 Years R/o Vivekanand Nagar, Phase-1 Mopka District - Bilaspur (C.G.). ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Commerce And Industries Department, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur (C.G.). 2 - Commissioner Bilaspur Division, Bilaspur (C.G.). 3 - Collector Bilaspur, District - Bilaspur (C.G.). 4 - Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue) - Cum - Land Acquisition Officer Bilha, District - Bilaspur (C.G.). 5 - Tehsildar Tehsil Bodri, District Bilaspur (C.G.). 6 - District Commerce And Industrial Center Through The Chief General Manager, District Commerce And Industrial Center Bilaspur, District Bilaspur (C.G.). 7 - Arun Kumar S/o Chhedilal R/o Village Mohbhatta, P.H. No. 10, Tehsil Bodri, District - Bilaspur (C.G.). 8 - Sushila W/o Chhedilal R/o Village Mohbhatta, P.H. No. 10, Tehsil Bodri, District - Bilaspur (C.G.). 9 - Ayush Kashyap S/o Sunil Kashyap R/o Village Mohbhatta, P.H. No. 10, Tehsil Bodri, District - Bilaspur (C.G.). 10 - Piyush Kashyap S/o Sunil Kashyap R/o Village Mohbhatta, P.H. No. 10, Tehsil Bodri, District - Bilaspur (C.G.). RAGHVENDRA JAT Digitally signed by RAGHVENDRA JAT 2 11 - Neeta Kashyap D/o Sunil Kashyap R/o Village Mohbhatta, P.H. No. 10, Tehsil Bodri, District - Bilaspur (C.G.). ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Keshav Dewangan, Advocate. For Respondent(s)/State : Mr. Anand Dadariya, Dy. A.G. Hon’ble Mr. Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Order on Board 12/08/2026 1. By way of this petition, the petitioner has prayed for following reliefs:- “10.1 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to call for the entire records pertaining to the petitioner's case for its kind perusal. 10.2 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash/set aside the award dated 08.04.2024 passed by Res. no. 4. 10.3 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue an appropriate writ, thereby directing the respondent authorities to pass a fresh award after giving opportunity of hearing to the petitioner as per present market value, with interest. In alternate 10.4 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the concerned respondent authorities to return the subject lands to the petitioner after quashing of the award. 10.5 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to 3 grant any other relief/reliefs in favour of the petitioner, which the Hon'ble Court deemed fit & just in the facts and circumstances of the case.” 2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has challenged the award on the ground that, being a subsequent purchaser of the subject land, he was also required to be afforded an opportunity of hearing before determination and disbursement of the compensation amount. It is further submitted that, if an appropriate amount of compensation has been determined under the award in favour of the original landholder, the petitioner, being the subsequent purchaser and claiming an interest in the land, is also entitled to seek an appropriate share in the compensation amount payable in respect of the acquired land. 3. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the State submits that the present petition is not maintainable in its present form, as the petitioner has an efficacious statutory remedy available under Section 64 of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, which has not been availed by the petitioner. It is, therefore, submitted that the petitioner ought to first approach the competent authority by invoking the statutory remedy provided under the said provision. 4. Having heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and having perused the material available on record, this Court has 4 considered the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the respective parties. 5. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and having regard to the availability of an efficacious statutory remedy under Section 64 of the Act, 2013, the petitioner is relegated to avail the said statutory remedy before the competent authority. 6. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the claim of the petitioner, and the competent authority shall consider the petitioner’s claim strictly in accordance with law and on its own merits. 7. With this observation and direction, the writ petition is disposed of. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Raghu Jat