1 CGHC010187482023 2026:CGHC:37666 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 2629 of 2023 Praful Patnaik Son Of Late Narayan Prasad Patnaik, Aged About 60 Years R/o. Village Tamnar, Tahsil Tamnar, District Raigarh Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Ministry Of Revenue And Disaster Management, Mahanadi Bhawan, Nawa Raipur, Atal Nagar, District Raipur Chhattisgarh 2 - Collector, Raigarh District Raigarh Chhattisgarh 3 - Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue)/land Acquistion Officer, Gharghoda, District Raigarh Chhattisgarh 4 - The Executive Director, M/s. Jindal Power Limited, Tamnar, Tahsil Tamnar, District Raigarh Chhattisgarh 5 - Executive Engineer, Civil Chhattisgarh State Power Generation Company Limited, Gharghoda, District Raigarh Chhattisgarh ... Respondents (Cause title taken from CIS System) For Petitioner : Mr. Shiv Kumar Banjare, Advocate For State : Mr. Abhishek Gupta, PL For Respondent No. 4 : Mr. Shashank Thakur, Advocate For Respondent No.5 : Ms. Aditi Parakh, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Raja Sharma, Advocate Hon’ble Mr. Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Order on Board Digitally signed by AMIT PATEL 2 21/08/2026 1. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is not assailing any particular order passed by the respondent authorities. Rather, the petitioner seeks a direction from this Court to the respondent authorities for grant of appropriate compensation and annual rent in respect of land bearing Khasra No. 156, admeasuring 0.546 Hectare, which was acquired by respondent No. 4 in the year 2004 for the purpose of establishment of an industrial unit. The petitioner has accordingly, sought the following reliefs:— “ 10.1 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent authorities to award proper compensation amount for the acquired land bearing Khasra No. 156, Area 0.546 Hectare for the purpose of industrial establishment. 10.2 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent authorities to provide the annual rent or interest @ 12% per annum from the date of land acquisition. 10.3 Any appropriate writ, direction or order may also kindly be passed in favour of the petitioners, which this Hon'ble Court deems fit in the circumstances of the case.” 3 2. Learned counsel appearing for respondent No. 4 submits that the present petition is not maintainable as the petitioner has failed to disclose that the subject land was duly acquired under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short the Act “1894”) pursuant to an award dated 30.09.2004 passed by the competent authority, i.e., the Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue), in Land Acquisition Case No. 01/A-82/2003-04 (State of Chhattisgarh v. Ugrasen & 131 Others). Under the said award, compensation of Rs. 76,744/- was assessed in respect of the petitioner's land however the petitioner or his family members have not received the said compensation amount. It is further submitted that despite being aware of the acquisition proceedings and the award. the petitioner neither challenged the award nor sought a reference for enhancement of compensation within the prescribed period. Having remained silent for more than two decades, the petitioner has approached this Court without offering any cogent or satisfactory explanation for such inordinate delay. The present petition, therefore, is liable to be dismissed on the grounds of suppression of material facts, delay and laches alone. 3. Learned State counsel supports the submissions made by learned counsel appearing for respondent No. 4 and submits that the present petition is not maintainable on account of delay and laches. It is further submitted that if the petitioner was aggrieved by the award dated 30.09.2004 or the compensation determined therein, he had a remedy to seek a reference under Section 18 of 4 the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short the Act “1894”). The petitioner having failed to avail the said remedy for more than two decades, the present petition deserves to be dismissed. 4. Having considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and the facts and circumstances of the case, particularly the fact that the award was passed way back on 30.09.2004 and upon perusal of the relief claimed by the petitioner, it appears that the petitioner is dissatisfied with the amount of compensation awarded and in substance, seeks enhancement thereof. If the petitioner seeks enhancement of the compensation, the appropriate remedy is to file an appropriate application seeking reference under Section 18 of the Act, 1894. However, the petitioner has not availed the said statutory remedy, therefore, the present petition, as framed, is not maintainable and is accordingly dismissed. However, liberty is reserved in favour of the petitioner to file an appropriate application seeking enhancement of compensation under Section 18 of the Act, 1894, before the Reference Court in accordance with law. SD/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge AMIT PATEL