1 CGHC010216962026 2026:CGHC:35940-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WA No. 641 of 2026 1 - National Highway Authority Of India, Through Project Director, National Highway No. 06, Project Implementation Unit, Raipur, House No. 5196, Behind B T I College, Shankar Nagar, Raipur 492001, District- Raipur Chhattisgarh. (Present Address- National Highways Authority Of India, Through Its Project Implementation Unit - Raipur, Monfort, R H S Building, N H- 30, Jhanki, Abhanpur, District- Raipur, Pin Code- 493661, Chhattisgarh) 2 - Project Director, National Highway Authority Of India, Project Implementation Unit, Raipur House No. 5196, Behind B T I College, Shankar Nagar, Raipur 492001, District-Raipur Chhattisgarh (Present Address- National Highways Authority Of India, Through Its Project Implementation Unit - Raipur, Monfort, R H S Building, N H- 30, Jhanki, Abhanpur, District- Raipur, Pin Code- 493661, Chhattisgarh) ... Appellant(s) versus 1 - Shankar Singh Kothari S/o Shri Kanhaiya Lal Kothari, Aged About 53 Years R/o Kamthi Line, Rajnandgaon, District-Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh 2 - Union Of India, Through Secretary, Ministry Of Road, Transport And Highways, New Delhi. 3 - The Sub Divisional Officer, (Revenue) Cum Competent Authority For Land Acquisition Officer, (National Highway Acquisition), Rajnandgaon, District-Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent(s) (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) For Appellant(s) : Mr. Dhiraj Kumar Wankhede, Advocate. For Respondent No. 1 : Mr. Ashish Surana, Advocate For Respondent No. 2 : Mr. Anmol Sharma, Advocate. For Respondent No. 3 : Mr. Praveen Das, Additional Advocate General. ALOK SHARMA Digitally signed by ALOK SHARMA Date: 2026.08.18 16:00:27 +0530 2 Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, Judge Judgment on Board Per Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice 13/08 /2026 1 Single Judge has rightly allowed the writ petition after considering the acquisition proceedings and the award dated 21.12.2017 passed by the Competent Authority for Land Heard Mr. Dhiraj Kumar Wankhede, learned counsel for the appellants, as well as Mr. Ashish Surana, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No. 1, Ms. Anmol Sharma, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No. 2, Mr. Praveen Das, learned Additional Advocate General, appearing for the State/respondent No.3. 2 By way of the present writ appeal under Section 2(1) of the Chhattisgarh High Court (Appeal to Division Bench) Act, 2006, the appellant/National Highways Authority of India has challenged the order dated 07.03.2022 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.(C) No.1286 of 2018 (Shankar Singh Kothari Vs. Union of India and Others), whereby the writ petition filed by respondent No.1 was allowed and the appellant and other respondents were directed to make payment of the compensation as determined in the award dated 21.12.2017 within a period of 90 days. The appellant has also challenged the order dated 16.04.2026 passed by the learned Single Judge, by filing Review Petition No.121 of 2022 (National Highways Authority of India and Another Vs. Shankar Singh Kothari and 3 Others), whereby the review petition preferred by the appellant against the order dated 07.03.2022 came to be dismissed on 16.04.2026. 3 The facts of the case, in brief, are that respondent No.1/writ petitioner, namely, Shankar Singh Kothari, was the owner of land admeasuring 1.181 hectares, bearing Khasra Nos. 289/2, 3 and 291/3, 4 and 5, situated at Village Lakholi, District Rajnandgaon, out of which an area of 132 square metres was acquired for widening of National Highway No.06 from Durg Bypass to Bag Nadi. The acquisition proceedings commenced with publication of notification under Section 3A(1) of the National Highways Act, 1956 (in short the Act of 1956) on 06.01.2016, followed by declaration under Section 3D of the Act of 1956 on 06.01.2017, whereby the acquired land vested in the Central Government free from all encumbrances. Thereafter, the Competent Authority for Land Acquisition (CALA) initiated proceedings for determination of compensation and an award was passed on 21.12.2017. As the compensation amount was not paid, respondent No.1 filed W.P.(C) No.1286 of 2018, which was allowed by the learned Single Judge vide order dated 07.03.2022, directing payment of the compensation determined under the award dated 21.12.2017 within 90 days. Aggrieved thereby, the appellant/NHAI preferred Review Petition No.121 of 2022, contending, inter alia, that its communication dated 25.01.2018 had been wrongly treated as a request for review of the award and that the subsequent memo dated 04.05.2018 and varying calculation sheets demonstrated that the compensation proceedings had not attained finality. During the review proceedings, affidavits were 4 filed by the CALA and NHAI concerning the said communications and the inclusion of statutory interest. However, the learned Single Judge, vide order dated 16.04.2026, dismissed the review petition and directed the NHAI to comply with the earlier order dated 07.03.2022 and ensure payment of the entire compensation amount determined under the award dated 21.12.2017. Hence, the present writ appeal has been preferred by the NHAI challenging both the aforesaid orders. 4 Mr. Dhiraj Kumar Wankhede, learned counsel appearing for the writ appellant/National Highways Authority of India, submits that the learned Single Judge has erred in directing the appellant to make payment on the basis of the award dated 21.12.2017, without appreciating the subsequent proceedings and material available on record. He submits that the communication dated 25.01.2018 issued by the NHAI was never intended to seek review of the award dated 21.12.2017, but merely pointed out the defects therein and sought re- examination and issuance of a legally valid award in accordance with the provisions of the National Highways Act, 1956 and the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013. Learned counsel further submits that the Competent Authority for Land Acquisition (CALA) had already passed an award dated 20.07.2017 and, having become functus officio, had no authority to review or alter the said award by subsequently issuing another award dated 21.12.2017. 5 He would further submit that the learned Single Judge has failed 5 to consider the material affidavits and documents brought on record, particularly the affidavit of the Competent Authority for Land Acquisition (CALA) and the Revenue Secretary, as well as the memo dated 04.05.2018, which was issued pursuant to the objections raised by NHAI. It is submitted that the CALA had prepared three different compensation computation charts in respect of the same land, reflecting different amounts, and ultimately assessed the compensation at Rs.88,34,080/- along with interest. The affidavit filed by NHAI on 19.03.2026 further specifically stated that the award dated 21.12.2017 was not in conformity with the provisions of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 and was not even in the prescribed format. He would submit that the communication dated 25.01.2018 was wrongly construed as an application seeking review of the award; in fact, NHAI had merely pointed out the structural, procedural and computational defects and sought re-examination of the compensation determination in accordance with law. The subsequent memo dated 04.05.2018 itself demonstrates that the compensation determination had not attained finality, but this material aspect was completely overlooked by the learned Single Judge. 6 He would next submit that the CALA had already passed an award on 20.07.2017 and, having exhausted its statutory jurisdiction, became functus officio. In the absence of any statutory provision under the National Highways Act, 1956 or the Act of 2013 conferring power of review upon the CALA, the subsequent alteration or rewriting of the 6 earlier award and issuance of another award dated 21.12.2017 could not have been sustained in law. It is argued that the issue of jurisdiction goes to the root of the matter and can be raised at any stage, particularly when it arises from admitted documents on record. The learned Single Judge, therefore, erred in enforcing the award dated 21.12.2017 without examining whether the same was legally competent, particularly in the face of the subsequent memo dated 04.05.2018 and the varying compensation calculations made by the CALA itself. The appellant/NHAI is also ready to deposit the compensation as determined by the authorities as per the calculation sheet annexed with the memo dated 04.05.2018. The impugned orders suffer from non- consideration of material evidence and an erroneous approach to the question of jurisdiction and, therefore, deserve to be set aside. 7 Mr. Ashish Surana, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.1, opposing the present writ appeal, submits that the learned Acquisition. It is submitted that the land of respondent No.1 had already been acquired and had vested in the Central Government, and therefore, the respondent/landowner cannot be deprived of the compensation duly determined in his favour. Learned counsel further submits that the communication dated 25.01.2018 and the subsequent inter se correspondence between the NHAI and the Competent Authority cannot have the effect of nullifying or indefinitely postponing the payment of compensation, particularly when the acquisition had already been completed and the award had been passed. 7 8 Learned counsel further submits that the learned Single Judge, while considering the review petition, has rightly observed that the landowner cannot be made to suffer on account of any inter se communication gap or administrative lapse between the authorities. It is submitted that the appellant/NHAI is essentially seeking reconsideration of issues which had already been considered while passing the order dated 07.03.2022, and such re-appreciation is beyond the limited scope of review jurisdiction. The learned Single Judge has therefore rightly directed the appellant to comply with the earlier order and ensure payment of the entire compensation amount determined under the award dated 21.12.2017, along with the statutory dues. He submits that no error apparent on the face of the record or jurisdictional infirmity has been demonstrated by the appellant warranting interference in the present intra-court appeal. 9 Mr Praveen Das, learned Additional Advocate General, appearing for the respondent-State, submits that the land owner is entitled for compensation of his land which has been acquired for widening of the National Highway for which the computation of the compensation has been done. Since the earlier calculation was found to be defective, a fresh calculation sheet was prepared and the interest calculated from 06.04.2016 to 21.12.2017 and certain benefits which were erroneoucly calculated in the earlier calculation was removed and held that the writ petitioner is entitled for 88,34,080/- towards compensation of his acquired land which is payable by the appellant NHAI. Since the NHAI is reday topay the said amount of Rs. 88,34,080/-, nothing survives in 8 the present writ appeal for its adjudication. 10 We have heard learned counsel appearing for the respective parties and have carefully perused the material available on record. 11 The main question which arises for consideration in the present writ appeal is as to whether the learned Single Judge was justified in directing payment of compensation to respondent No.1 on the basis of the award dated 21.12.2017, particularly when the appellant/NHAI has raised a dispute with regard to the legal validity and finality of the said award. 12 From the material placed before us, it is not in dispute that the land of respondent No.1 was acquired for the purpose of widening of National Highway No.06 and, pursuant to the acquisition proceedings, the acquired land vested in the Central Government. It is also not in dispute that the Competent Authority for Land Acquisition passed an award dated 21.12.2017 determining the compensation payable to respondent No.1. The grievance of the appellant/NHAI, however, is that prior thereto an award dated 20.07.2017 had been passed and that the subsequent proceedings culminating in the award dated 21.12.2017 were not legally sustainable. The appellant has also relied upon its communication dated 25.01.2018 and the subsequent memo dated 04.05.2018 to contend that the compensation proceedings had not attained finality. 13 It is evident that the land of respondent No.1 was acquired for widening of National Highway No.06 and the acquired land had already 9 vested in the Central Government. Though a dispute has been raised by the appellant/NHAI with regard to the validity and finality of the award dated 21.12.2017, the subsequent memo dated 04.05.2018 and the computation made pursuant thereto assume significance. As per the said computation, after rectification of the earlier calculation and adjustment of the benefits erroneously included therein, the compensation payable to respondent No.1 has been assessed at Rs.88,34,080/-, along with the applicable statutory interest, if any. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant/NHAI has also submitted that the said amount represents the compensation payable to the landowner and that the appellant/NHAI is ready to deposit the same. In view of the aforesaid subsequent development and the stand taken by the appellant, we are of the considered view that the controversy can appropriately be brought to an end by directing payment of the compensation as per the computation attached to the memo dated 04.05.2018. 14 Accordingly, without entering into the larger controversy regarding the legality or otherwise of the earlier and subsequent awards, we direct the appellant/NHAI to deposit/pay the compensation amount as determined in the computation annexed with the memo dated 04.05.2018, i.e. Rs.88,34,080/-, together with the statutory interest, if any, payable thereon in accordance with law, to respondent No.1 within a period of three months from today. Upon such deposit/payment, respondent No.1 shall be entitled to withdraw the amount in accordance with law. In view of the aforesaid direction and the statement made on 10 behalf of the appellant that it is ready to pay the said amount, nothing further survives for adjudication in the present writ appeal. The writ appeal is, accordingly, disposed of. The impugned orders dated 07.03.2022 and 16.04.2026 shall stand modified to the aforesaid extent. 15 Pending interlocutory applications, if any, also stand disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. Sd/- Sd/- Sd/- sD SSd (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Alok