1 CGHC010398252022 2026:CGHC:35788 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 5355 of 2022 Order Reserved on: 21.7.2026 Order Delivered on: 13.8.2026 • Murlidhar Chandram S/o Late Bisahu Ram Chandram Aged About 68 Years R/o Sidarpara Ward No. 13, Village - P.O. Dabhra, District Sakti Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioner(s) versus 1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through - Chief Secretary, Mantralaya, Naya Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh. 2. Secretary, Public Works Department, Mantralaya, Naya Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh. 3. Secretary, Department Of Revenue And Disaster Management, Mantralaya, Naya Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh. 4. Collector, Sakti, District Sakti Chhattisgarh. 5. Collector, Janjgir-Champa, District - Janjgir-Champa Chhattisgarh. 6. Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue) Land Acquisition Officer, Dabhra Block-Dabhra, District Sakti Chhattisgarh. RAGHVENDRA JAT Digitally signed by RAGHVENDRA JAT 2 7. Executive Engeneer, Public Works Department, Champa Division, District Sakti Chhattisgarh. 8. Chief Engineer, Public Works Department, Champa Division, District Sakti Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Ms. Rajni Soren, Advocate. For Respondent(s)/State : Mr. Soumitra Kesharwani, Panel Lawyer. Hon’ble Mr. Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad C A V Order 1. By way of this petition, the petitioner has prayed for following reliefs:- “i) Set-aside order dated 04.09.2022 issued by the Executive Engineer, Public Works Department, Champa Division, Champa (C.G.). (ii) Issue a writ of mandamus directing the respondent authorities to compensate the petitioner for acquiring 0.06 acres of khasra no. 925/1, Village Dabhra, Distt. Sakti (C.G.) (erstwhile District Champa) as per prevalent compensation rates under the Land Acquisition Act, 2013. (iii) Pass any other order the Hon'ble Court may deem fit in the interest of justice.” 3 2. Brief facts of the case, is that, the petitioner is the owner and title holder of the land bearing Khasra No. 925/1 situated at Village Dabhra, P.H. No. 22, Tahsil Dabhra. According to the petitioner, approximately 0.06 acre of the said land was utilized by the Public Works Department in the year 2006 for the construction of a road connecting Ghoghri Road to College Road without initiating any land acquisition proceedings, issuing any notice to the petitioner, or paying compensation. It is further pleaded that ever since the construction of the road, the petitioner has been continuously pursuing his claim for compensation before the competent authorities. The record reveals that the Sub-Divisional Officer, Dabhra, by memorandum dated 13.03.2018, called upon the Public Works Department to furnish information regarding payment of compensation to the petitioner and observed that compensation ought to be awarded. Thereafter, the Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue), Dabhra, issued a reminder dated 24.05.2018 requesting the Public Works Department to take necessary steps for payment of compensation. Subsequently, the Executive Engineer, Public Works Department, by communication dated 30.04.2019, requested the Chief Engineer, Bilaspur Zone, to release a sum of ₹31,03,030/- towards compensation payable to the petitioner. The petitioner further states that the Under Secretary, Public Works Department, informed him on 02.05.2019 that certain discrepancies in the land acquisition proceedings were required to be rectified by the Collector and that the 4 compensation would be processed after the award was passed. It is further averred that between the years 2019 and 2021, the petitioner submitted several representations before the Collector as well as the Chief Minister seeking payment of compensation. Pursuant thereto, the Executive Engineer, Public Works Department, informed the Collector on 29.07.2020 that due to the non-availability of budget under the Aapsi Sahmati Se Bhumi Kray Niti, 2016, the requisition for compensation had already been forwarded to the Collector and that the compensation was expected to be disbursed within twelve months. Thereafter, the Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue) and Land Acquisition Officer, Dabhra, by memorandum dated 14.12.2020, requested the Executive Engineer to obtain the compensation amount and place the petitioner's case before the Collector for disbursement. However, despite repeated assurances and several representations submitted by the petitioner, no compensation was paid. Ultimately, after keeping the matter pending for several years and repeatedly informing the petitioner that his claim was under process, the respondent authorities passed the impugned order holding that the petitioner was not entitled to any compensation. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the impugned order is arbitrary, illegal, and unsustainable in law. It is contended that the Public Works Department has admittedly constructed a concrete road over the petitioner's land bearing 5 Khasra No. 925/1 without initiating acquisition proceedings or paying any compensation, and therefore the petitioner, being the recorded Bhumiswami of the land, is legally entitled to receive just and fair compensation. Learned counsel further submits that the finding recorded in the impugned order that the Public Works Department neither acquired nor utilized the petitioner's land is factually incorrect and contrary to the material available on record, which clearly demonstrates that the road has been constructed over the petitioner's land by the department itself. It is further argued that the respondents, despite repeatedly acknowledging the petitioner's claim and processing the proposal for payment of compensation for several years, have ultimately rejected the claim on untenable grounds, thereby compelling the petitioner to run from pillar to post. It is also submitted that the respondents have deprived the petitioner of his constitutional right to property guaranteed under Article 300-A of the Constitution of India by taking possession of and utilizing his land without following the due process of law and without payment of compensation. Learned counsel further contends that the reliance placed by the respondents upon the provisions of the Indian Easements Act, 1882, is wholly misconceived and legally unsustainable, as no easementary right has ever been established over the petitioner's land, nor does the impugned order disclose the existence of any dominant heritage or person entitled to claim such easement. It is, therefore, prayed that the impugned order be quashed and the 6 respondents be directed to grant the petitioner appropriate compensation in accordance with law. 4. Learned counsel for the State submits that the claim of the petitioner is wholly misconceived and devoid of merit, as the land in question was never acquired by the respondent authorities. It is contended that a Kacchi Sadak had been in existence over the said land much prior to the year 1980 and was being continuously used by the villagers as an approach road, and in the year 2006 the Public Works Department merely concretized the existing road without acquiring any additional land. It is further submitted that the petitioner is, therefore, not entitled to claim compensation merely on account of the concretization of the road. Learned State counsel further submits that the road has been in continuous public use for several decades and the villagers have acquired easementary rights over the same under the provisions of the Indian Easements Act, 1882. Reliance is also placed upon Section 135 of the Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code to contend that neither the petitioner nor the erstwhile landowners ever sought compensation within the prescribed period, and having acquiesced to the existence and use of the road, they cannot, after an inordinate delay, seek acquisition of the land or claim compensation. It is further submitted that although certain inter- departmental communications were exchanged regarding the petitioner's claim, upon verification of the revenue records it was found that no acquisition had ever taken place and, accordingly, 7 the claim for compensation was rightly rejected. It is, therefore, prayed that the writ petition, being devoid of merit, deserves to be dismissed. 5. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and upon perusal of the material available on record, this Court finds no merit in the present writ petition. It is not in dispute that the road in question had been in existence much prior to the year 2006 and the material placed on record indicates that it was being used by the villagers as an approach road for several decades. The stand of the respondents that in the year 2006 the Public Works Department merely concretized the existing Kacchi Sadak and that no land acquisition proceedings were ever initiated has remained consistent and is duly supported by the relevant records. Merely because certain inter-departmental communications were exchanged regarding the petitioner's claim for compensation would not, by themselves, create or confer any legal right upon the petitioner to claim compensation in the absence of any acquisition proceedings. The petitioner has failed to place any cogent material on record to establish that his land was acquired by the State in accordance with law or that possession thereof was taken pursuant to any acquisition proceedings. Furthermore, the petitioner and his predecessors-in- interest admittedly did not raise any objection or seek compensation for several years after the construction and use of the road, thereby acquiescing in the continued existence and use 8 of the road. In such circumstances, this Court finds no infirmity, illegality, or perversity in the impugned order rejecting the petitioner's claim for compensation. Consequently, no case for interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is made out. 6. Accordingly, the writ petition, being devoid of substance and merit, is hereby dismissed. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Raghu Jat