1 CGHC010263922022 2026:CGHC:35784 AFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 3536 of 2022 Order Reserved on: 10.7.2026 Order Delivered on: 13.8.2026 1. Vishan Patel S/o Late Gopal Bhai Aged About 50 Years R/o Jairam Timber, Fafadih, Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh. 2. Aarti Jain W/o Suresh Kumar Jain Aged About 54 Years R/o Gudhiyari Padav, Gudhiyari, Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh. 3. Smt. Sangeeta Jain W/o Sandeep Kumar Jain Aged About 51 Years R/o Gudhiyari Padav, Gudhiyari, Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh. 4. Smt. Pooja Jain W/o Subodh Kumar Jain Aged About 44 Years R/o Gudhiyari Padav, Gudhiyari, Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioner(s) versus 1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Revenue And Disaster Management Department , Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, RAGHVENDRA JAT Digitally signed by RAGHVENDRA JAT 2 Capital Complex, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh. 2. Collector Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh. 3. Sub Divisional Officer / Land Acquisition Officer Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh. 4. Municipal Corporation Raipur Through Its Commissioner, Municipal Corporation Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh. 5. Fekan Bai W/o Late Baratu Ram R/o Village Dumartarai, Raipur , Tehsil And District Raipur Chhattisgarh. 6. Derha Ram S/o Late Baratu Ram R/o Village Dumartarai, Raipur , Tehsil And District Raipur Chhattisgarh. 7. Ganeshiya Bai D/o Late Baratu Ram R/o Village Dumartarai, Raipur , Tehsil And District Raipur Chhattisgarh. 8. Kumari Bai D/o Late Baratu Ram R/o Village Dumartarai, Raipur , Tehsil And District Raipur Chhattisgarh. 9. Mand Kumari D/o Late Baratu Ram R/o Village Dumartarai, Raipur , Tehsil And District Raipur Chhattisgarh. 10. Chaitu Dheemar S/o Sukul Dheemar R/o Village Dumartarai, Raipur , Tehsil And District Raipur Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Manoj Paranjpe, Sr. Advocate along with Mr. Kabir Kalwani, Advocate. For Respondent(s)/State : Mr. S. S. Choubey, G.A. For Respondent No. 4 : Mr. Saurabh Sharma, Advocate 3 along with ms. Harneet Kaur, Advocate. Hon’ble Mr. Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad C A V Order 1. By way of this petition, the petitioner has prayed for following reliefs:- “1] That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue a writ/writs, order/orders, direction/directions and the award dated 20.03.2013 be set-aside since the possession of the property has not been taken, compensation has not been paid, the public purpose i.e. extension of wholesale market has come to an end, the amount of compensation has not been deposited in the account of beneficiaries or in the account of revenue deposits. 2] That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue a writ/writs, order/orders, direction/directions and to the respondents to determine and pay the compensation with all consequential benefits including the interest in the matter of acquisition of lands of the petitioner in accordance with the Act of 2013. 3] That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue a writ/writs, order/orders, direction/directions and it may 4 kindly be held that, the land acquired as per the notification dated 12.03.2010 for extension of wholesale market is no more required for public purpose and the authorities may further be directed to returned the land in questions to the land owners/petitioners herein. 4] That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue a writ/writs, order/orders, direction/directions and the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to held that the land acquisition proceedings have been lapsed as per Section 24 of the Act of 2013, and may kindly be pleased to quash all the proceedings. 5 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue a writ/writs, order/orders, direction/directions, quashing the auction notice dated 15.07.2022 issued by Commissioner, Municipal Corporation Raipur for sale of the lands bearing Khasra No. 311/5, 311/9 & 311/23, situated at Dumartarai, Raipur so far as it relates to the petitioners lands are concerned and they may further be directed not to change the purpose for which the lands were acquired vide notification dated 12.03.2010. 6] That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to grant any other relief(s), which is deemed fit and proper in the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case.” 2. Brief facts of the case, is that the petitioners, being the owners of the lands bearing Khasra No. 311/9 admeasuring 0.045 hectare, 5 Khasra No. 311/5 admeasuring 0.143 hectare and Khasra No. 311/23 admeasuring 0.250 hectare, situated at Village Dumartarai, P.C. No. 74, R.I. Circle Raipur-I, Tehsil and District Raipur (C.G.), have preferred the present writ petition challenging the award dated 20.03.2013 passed by the Land Acquisition Officer in Land Acquisition Case No. 14/A-82/2009-10 and seeking a direction to the respondent authorities to determine and pay compensation together with all consequential statutory benefits, including interest, in accordance with the provisions of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013. It is contended that although the award was passed on 20.03.2013, the same was never filed in the office of the Collector nor was any notice under Section 12(2) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 served either upon the original landowners or upon the petitioners, who are subsequent purchasers of the lands in question. It is further submitted that no compensation has been paid either to the original landowners or to the petitioners and, therefore, the award cannot be said to have been finalized in accordance with Section 12 of the Act of 1894, with the result that the provisions of the Act of 2013 are squarely attracted. It is also contended that the compensation amount was never deposited in the Revenue Deposit Account but was instead kept in the personal account of the Collector, Raipur, and that compensation has not been disbursed to the majority of the beneficiaries covered under the 6 acquisition notification issued under Section 4 of the Act of 1894. It is further urged that more than five years have elapsed since the passing of the award dated 20.03.2013, no compensation has been paid, and the petitioners continue to remain in possession of the lands in question, therefore, by virtue of Section 24 of the Act of 2013, the acquisition proceedings are deemed to have lapsed and the petitioners are entitled to compensation under the provisions of the Act of 2013. It is lastly submitted that the lands were acquired for the public purpose of extension of the wholesale market at Dumartarai, however, despite the lapse of several years, no development has been undertaken and the acquired lands continue to remain unutilized. On the contrary, the Municipal Corporation, Raipur has issued an auction notice dated 15.07.2022 proposing to sell the acquired lands in the open market, which, according to the petitioners, clearly demonstrates that the very public purpose for which the acquisition was undertaken has ceased to exist. Placing reliance upon Section 101 of the Act of 2013, it is argued that since the acquired lands have remained unutilized for more than five years, the same are liable to be returned to the original landowners or dealt with strictly in accordance with the provisions of the Act of 2013. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the lands belonging to the petitioners, bearing Khasra Nos. 311/5, 311/9 and 311/23, situated at Village Dumartarai, Tehsil and District Raipur, were acquired under the provisions of the Land 7 Acquisition Act, 1894, and an award came to be passed on 20.03.2013. It is contended that, despite the passing of the award, no notice under Section 12(2) of the Act of 1894 was ever served upon the original landowners or the subsequent purchasers, and the alleged notices shown to have been issued subsequently were merely an eyewash and were never duly served upon the concerned landowners. It is further submitted that neither possession of the acquired lands was taken in accordance with law nor was any panchnama prepared, nor were proceedings under Section 16 of the Act of 1894 undertaken, with the result that the petitioners continue to remain in actual physical possession of the subject lands. Learned counsel further submits that the compensation has neither been paid to the petitioners nor deposited in respect of the majority of the landholdings, and, therefore, the conditions contemplated under Section 24 of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 stand satisfied, resulting in the lapse of the acquisition proceedings. It is further contended that, in view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Prahlad Singh v. Union of India, (2011) 5 SCC 386, the present writ petition is maintainable, and that the subsequent purchasers are also entitled to compensation in terms of the law declared by the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in (2012) 12 SCC 133. Learned counsel further submits that, in the alternative, if the acquisition is not held to have lapsed, the 8 petitioners are entitled to compensation together with all consequential benefits, including statutory interest, in accordance with the provisions of the Act of 2013. It is also argued that the lands were originally acquired for the public purpose of extension of the wholesale market at Dumartarai, however, no development or utilization of the acquired lands has taken place since the year 2013. Instead, the Municipal Corporation has issued an auction notice dated 15.07.2022 proposing to sell the acquired lands in the open market, which clearly demonstrates that the original public purpose has ceased to exist. Consequently, it is submitted that the impugned award dated 20.03.2013 and the auction notice dated 15.07.2022 deserve to be quashed and, in view of Section 101 of the Act of 2013, the unutilized lands are liable to be returned to the original landowners, or in the alternative, the petitioners are entitled to compensation in accordance with the provisions of the Act of 2013 along with all consequential benefits. He has placed reliance upon the judgments passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matters of Banda Development Authority vs. Moti Lal Agarwal, 2011 (5) SCC 394, Prahlad Singh vs. Union of India, (2011) 5 SCC 386, Prahlad Singh vs. Union of India, (2012) 12 SCC 133 and Indore Development Authority (LAPSE-5 J.) vs. Manoharlal, (2020) 8 SCC 129. 4. Learned State counsel submits that the writ petition is devoid of merit, as the land acquisition proceedings were validly concluded under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, culminating in the Award 9 dated 20.03.2013, pursuant to which the acquired land vested in the State. It is submitted that the petitioners admittedly purchased the lands bearing Khasra Nos. 311/5, 311/9 and 311/23 only in the years 2014 and 2015, i.e., after the passing of the award, and, therefore, no valid right, title or interest could have been conveyed in their favour. Learned State counsel further submits that the acquisition proceedings were conducted strictly in accordance with law after issuance of notifications, inviting objections, and determination of compensation, which was awarded in favour of the original landowners, who neither challenged the award nor sought enhancement of compensation, thereby allowing the award to attain finality. It is contended that mere mutation in the revenue records does not confer title upon the petitioners, and being subsequent purchasers, they have no locus to challenge the acquisition proceedings or claim compensation under the Act of 2013. It is further submitted that in view of the Constitution Bench judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Indore Development Authority v. Manoharlal & Ors., the acquisition has not lapsed under Section 24 of the Act of 2013, as possession of the acquired land had already been taken and the compensation amount continues to remain deposited with the competent authority for disbursement to the persons legally entitled thereto. Accordingly, it is prayed that the writ petition deserves to be dismissed. 10 5. Learned counsel appearing for respondent No. 4 submits that the present writ petition is wholly misconceived, untenable in law, and liable to be dismissed, as the lands bearing Khasra Nos. 308/8 (area 0.405 hectare), 308/9 (area 0.405 hectare), 308/10 (area 0.263 hectare), 311/6 (area 0.194 hectare), 311/4 (area 0.405 hectare), 311/5 (area 0.393 hectare) and 311/9 (area 0.405 hectare), admeasuring a total area of 2.470 hectares, were lawfully acquired under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, for the public purpose of extension of the wholesale market at Village Dumartarai, pursuant to the Award dated 20.03.2013. It is submitted that the petitioners are admittedly subsequent purchasers, having purchased portions of Khasra No. 311/9 area 0.405 hectare and Khasra No. 311/5 area 0.143, including the land subsequently renumbered as Khasra No. 311/23, by registered sale deeds dated 21/23.07.2014 and 11.05.2015, i.e., after the passing of the award and vesting of the acquired lands in the Municipal Corporation. Consequently, the petitioners have acquired no valid or enforceable right, title, or interest in the acquired lands and, therefore, have no locus standi to challenge the acquisition proceedings, the Award dated 20.03.2013, or the consequential auction proceedings. Learned counsel further submits that the auction notice dated 15.07.2022 pertains to lands comprising part of Khasra No. 424 (12,490 sq. metres), Khasra Nos. 308/8, 308/9 and 308/10 (10,730 sq. metres), and Khasra Nos. 311/4, 311/5, 311/6, 311/9 and 311/23 (13,970 sq. metres), 11 whereas the petitioners have sought to challenge the auction only in respect of Khasra Nos. 311/5, 311/9 and 311/23. It is contended that once the award had been passed and possession of the acquired lands had been taken under Section 16 of the Act of 1894, the lands stood vested absolutely in the State/Municipal Corporation free from all encumbrances, and such vesting cannot be divested by invoking Sections 24(2) or 101 of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013. It is further submitted that the sale deeds executed in favour of the petitioners after the passing of the award are void in the eyes of law and do not confer any legal right to challenge the completed acquisition proceedings or claim lapse of acquisition under the Act of 2013. Learned counsel contends that the original landowners neither objected to the acquisition proceedings nor sought enhancement of compensation and, therefore, the award has attained finality. It is also submitted that the plea regarding non-utilization of the acquired land is wholly misconceived, as mere non-utilization of land for the original purpose does not result in divesting of land once it has vested in the acquiring authority, and Section 101 of the Act of 2013 has no application to acquisitions concluded under the Act of 1894. Learned counsel further submits that the State Government, in exercise of its powers under Section 433 read with Section 80 of the Chhattisgarh Municipal Corporation Act, 1956, granted permission for transfer of the land in accordance 12 with the Municipal Corporation (Transfer of Immovable Property) Rules, 1994, pursuant to Gazette Notification dated 11.05.2022, and thereafter the impugned auction notice dated 15.07.2022 was lawfully issued after obtaining all requisite statutory approvals. It is argued that the proposed auction is intended solely for public purposes relating to the development, management, and maintenance of the wholesale market and not for any private gain. It is, therefore, submitted that the petitioners, being subsequent purchasers claiming under void transactions, have no legal right to challenge the acquisition proceedings or the auction notice, nor are they entitled to any relief under the Act of 2013, and accordingly, the writ petition deserves to be dismissed. He has placed reliance upon the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Delhi Development Authority vs. Godfrey Philips (I) Ltd, AIR 2022 SC 2282 and Delhi Development Authority Vs. MGS (India) Private Ltd & Ors passed in Civil Appeal No. 944/2023 & Govt. Of NCT of Delhi Through Secretary Land & Building Department and Anr. Vs. MGS (India) Private Ltd & Ors. passed in Civil Appeal No. 947/2023. 6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and upon perusal of the material available on record, this Court finds that it is an admitted position that the land acquisition proceedings in respect of the lands in question had already culminated in the passing of the final award dated 20.03.2013, whereas the petitioners 13 admittedly purchased the said lands subsequently by registered sale deeds dated 23.07.2014 and 11.05.2015. Thus, on the date of initiation as well as culmination of the acquisition proceedings and passing of the award, the petitioners were neither the owners nor the title holders of the lands in question and, therefore, being subsequent purchasers, they have no locus standi to challenge the acquisition proceedings which had already attained finality prior to their purchase. It is well settled that once an award has been passed and possession of the acquired land has been taken under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, the land vests absolutely in the State free from all encumbrances, and such vesting is absolute and irrevocable, there being no provision for divesting under Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013. The petitioners, being purchasers subsequent to such vesting, are governed by the principle of caveat emptor and were under a legal obligation to ascertain the nature, title, and status of the lands before purchasing the same. Since the lands had already vested in the State prior to the execution of the sale deeds, respondents No. 5 to 10 had no subsisting right, title, or interest to transfer in favour of the petitioners, and consequently, no valid or enforceable right accrued to the petitioners by virtue of such transactions. The contention of the petitioners that they continue to be in possession of the lands and, therefore, the acquisition proceedings stand 14 vitiated is wholly misconceived and devoid of merit, as mere physical possession, if any, cannot defeat the statutory consequences of vesting under the Act of 1894. Equally untenable is the submission that the acquisition proceedings are liable to be quashed on the ground that the public purpose for which the lands were acquired has allegedly not been fulfilled, for once the acquisition proceedings have been validly concluded and the land has vested in the State, neither the original landowners nor the subsequent purchasers can seek to invalidate the acquisition on the ground of non-utilization of the land or alleged failure of the public purpose. Accordingly, this Court is of the considered opinion that the petitioners, being subsequent purchasers of lands which had already vested in the State prior to their purchase, have no legal right to question the acquisition proceedings or to seek any relief under the Act of 2013, and the writ petition, being devoid of merit, deserves to be dismissed. 7. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Delhi Development Authority vs. Godfrey Philips (I) Ltd, AIR 2022 SC 2282, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed as under:- “41. The purchaser had in fact filed a Writ of Mandamus for delivering the possession of the entire acquired land. Such claim of Mandamus shows that the purchaser is out of possession. Therefore, the condition in Indore Development Authority for lapsing of the acquisition is not satisfied. Therefore, as per the purchaser, the possession 15 has been taken of the part of the land and compensation has been deposited in respect of the remaining land. Thus, the twin conditions as laid down by this Court are not satisfied. 42. Even otherwise, the stand of the appellant is that the possession of the entire land was taken on 14.7.1987 whereas possession of land measuring 12 Bigha 18 Biswa was handed over to it, whereas the possession of the remaining land measuring 15 Bigha 10 Biswa is with the Government of Delhi. Therefore, the purchaser is not entitled to any declaration of lapsing of acquisition proceedings inter alia on the ground that it has purchased the land after vesting of the land with the State and the possession has been taken of the land measuring 28 Bigha 8 Biswa and the compensation has also been deposited in respect of entire land, though the compensation in respect of land admeasuring 12 Bigha 18 Biswa was disbursed. The remaining amount of compensation was with the Land Acquisition Collector. 43. Still further, the purchaser had purchased the property after vesting of the land with the State. In fact, in Manav Dharam Trust, earlier three Judge Bench judgment in M. Venkatesh was not even referred to. The purchaser has no right to claim lapsing of acquisition proceedings in view of the recent larger Bench judgment of this Court reported as 16 Shiv Kumar and Anr. v. Union of India and Ors. wherein the judgment rendered by two-Judge Bench in Manav Dharam Trust was not found to be a good law. Hence, the purchaser has no right to claim a declaration sought for. It was held as under: even the provisions of the Act of 2013 have not been taken into consideration, which prohibits such transactions in particular provisions of Section 11, including the proviso to Section 24(2). Apart from that, it was not legally permissible to a Division Bench to ignore the decisions of the larger Bench comprising of three Judges and of coordinate Bench. They were not per incuriam and were relevant for deciding the issue of taking possession under the 1894 Act, at the instance of purchaser. In case it wanted to depart from the view taken earlier, it ought to have referred the matter to a larger Bench. It has been ignored that when a purchase is void, then no declaration can be sought on the ground that the land acquisition under the 2013 Act has lapsed due to illegality/irregularity of proceedings of taking possession under the 1894 Act. No declaration can be sought by a purchaser under Section 24 17 that acquisition has lapsed, effect of which would be to get back the land. They cannot seek declaration that acquisition made under the 1894 Act has lapsed by the challenge to the proceedings of taking possession under the 1894 Act. Such right was not available after the purchase in 2000 and no such right has been provided to the purchasers under the 2013 Act also. Granting a right to question acquisition would be against the public policy and the law which prohibits such transactions; it cannot be given effect to under the guise of subsequent legislation containing similar provisions. Subsequent legislation does not confer any new right to a person based on such void transaction; instead, it includes a provision prohibiting such transactions without permission of the Collector as provided in Section 11(4).” 8. Furthermore, the issue is no longer res integra, inasmuch as the three-Judge Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, in Delhi Development Authority v. MGS (India) Private Ltd. & Ors., Civil Appeal No. 944 of 2023, and Government of NCT of Delhi through Secretary, Land & Building Department & Anr. v. MGS (India) Private Ltd. & Ors., Civil Appeal No. 947 of 2023, decided on 17.03.2023, has held as under:- 18 “5. It is not in dispute that the original writ petitioner is the subsequent purchaser, who purchased the land in question subsequent to the acquisition proceedings and even after the subsequent was declared. Therefore, being a purchaser, as observed and held by this Court in catena of decisions, more particularly, in the case of Shiv Kumar & Anr. (supra) and Godfrey Phillips (1) Ltd. & Ors. (supra) and other subsequent decisions, subsequent purchaser has no locus to challenge the lapsing of the acquisition. 5.1 The submission on behalf of the respondent that the decision of this Court in the case of Shiv Kumar & Anr. (supra) shall not be applicable as in that case, the original writ petitioner claimed the title on the basis of a general power of attorney and in the present case, the subsequent purchaser purchased the property by registered sale deed is concerned, it is required to be noted that the law laid down by this Court in the aforesaid decision is that a subsequent purchaser has no locus to challenge the acquisition. In the case of Godfrey Phillips (1) Ltd. & Ors, (supra), it is specifically observed and held that the subsequent purchaser has no locus to pray for lapsing of the acquisition. 5.2 Now, so far as the reliance placed upon the decision of this Court in the case of Manav Dharam Trust and Anr. 19 (supra) is concerned, it is required to be noted that the said decision is held to be per incuriam by this Court in the aforesaid decisions. 5.3 From the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court, it appears that though before the High Court and so stated in the counter, an objection was raised on maintainability of the writ petition, at the instance of the original writ petitioner - subsequent purchaser, the same has not been dealt with by the High Court, The High Court ought to have dealt with the said aspect. Be that it may, the fact remains that the respondent being a subsequent purchaser had no locus to pray for lapsing of the acquisition as observed and held by this Court in the aforesaid decisions. Therefore, the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court is unsustainable.” 9. Having regard to the aforesaid discussion, this Court is unable to accept the contention advanced on behalf of the petitioners that, having stepped into the shoes of the original landowners by virtue of the subsequent sale deeds, they are automatically entitled to receive the compensation determined in the name of the erstwhile owners. The entitlement to compensation is governed by the rights existing on the date of acquisition and passing of the award, and the petitioners, being subsequent purchasers, cannot claim such compensation as a matter of right in these proceedings. 20 However, it is always open to the petitioners and respondents No. 5 to 10, being the original landowners, to amicably resolve their inter se dispute regarding entitlement to the compensation amount, if the same has not already been disbursed to respondents No. 5 to 10. In the event the parties arrive at any lawful settlement or understanding with regard to the disbursement or apportionment of the compensation, they shall be at liberty to pursue such remedy as may be available to them in accordance with law before the competent authority or the Court of competent civil jurisdiction for seeking appropriate orders relating to the compensation awarded. 10. With the aforesaid observations, this Court finds no merit in the writ petition, and accordingly, the same is hereby dismissed. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Raghu Jat