1 CGHC010005922018 2026:CGHC:41719 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 106 of 2018 1 - Dr. Jagdish Singh S/o Late Shri Randhir Singh, Aged About 64 Years R/o Main Road Baradwar, District Janjgir Champa Chhattisgarh, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary Public Works Department Mahanadi Bhavan, Mantralaya New Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh, Chhattisgarh 2 - Engineer In Chief, P.W.D/ National Highway, Sirpur Bhawan, Near Kali Mandir, Via Governor House Road, Raipur Chhattisgarh Pin Code 492002 3 - Collector, Janjgir Champa, District Janjgir- Champa, Chhattisgarh. 4 - Sub Divisional Officer, Revenue, Sakti, District Janjgir- Champa, Chhattisgarh., 5 - Executive Engineer, National Highway Division Bilaspur, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh., 6 - Tahsildar, Baradwar, District Janjgir- Champa, Chhattisgarh. 7 - Union Of India Through The Secretary, Ministry Of Road Transport And Highways, New Delhi , 110001. ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner (s) : Mr. Sushobhit Singh, Advocate For Respondent/State For Respondent No. 5 : : Mr. Keshav Gupta, G.A. Mrs. Annpurna Tiwari, Sr. CGC along with Mr. Rishabh Dev Singh, CGC Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 25.09.2026 1. The present writ petition has been filed seeking following relief(s):- (I) That, this Hon'ble court may kindly be pleased to call for the entire records of the case. (ii) That, the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash the impugned order dated 13.11.2017 (Annexure P/1) passed by respondent no.5 and direct the respondent 2 authorities restraining them from illegally acquiring the petitioner land. (iii) That, the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondents authorities to acquire the petitionerland only after following the due process of law and the respondents authorities may be further directed to grant suitable compensation in lieu of acquisition of the petitioner land. (iv) Any other relief / reliefs which may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case may also be allowed. 2. Facts in brief are that the land of the petitioner bearing Survey No. 644/1, admeasuring 0.48 hectare, situated at Village Naya Baradwar, was adjacent to National Highway No. 200 (New N.H. No. 49). The respondent authorities initiated the drive for widening the National Highway and a part of the land of the petitioner was utilized in such process. It is alleged that no proceeding for acquisition of land was initiated and forcibly some part of the land of the petitioner was used for widening the National Highway. Earlier, WPC No. 200/2017 was filed, which was disposed of vide order dated 27.01.2017, wherein the State authorities were directed to demarcate the area in the presence of the petitioner and, if it was found that the land of the petitioner had been used for widening of the road, appropriate proceedings for acquisition of the land would be initiated and the same would be completed within a period of 6 months. Pursuant to the said order, the petitioner approached the respondent authorities and subsequently, the demarcation was conducted by the revenue authorities in the presence of the petitioner, wherein it was found that 79 x 23 = 1817 sq. ft. of land of Survey No. 644/1 had been used for widening of the National Highway and the said land was acquired in the year 1967. It is also stated that, in the letter dated 22.09.2017, notification under Section 4 3 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short referred to as the “Act 1894”), was issued on 06.01.1967 and notification under Section 6 of the Act was issued on 16.06.1967. The Executive Engineer, Public Works Department, National Highways Division, Bilaspur, passed an order on 13.11.2017 rejecting the claim of the petitioner on the ground that the land of the petitioner which had been used for widening of the road was acquired way back in the year 1967 and notifications under Sections 4 and 6 of the Act, 1894, were issued on 06.01.1967 and 16.06.1967. The petitioner has challenged the said order dated 13.11.2017 by filing this petition. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that for the first time, the respondent authorities have disclosed the fact that notifications under Sections 4 and 6 of the Act, 1894, were issued in the year 1967. He would contend that though the notifications were issued, no award was passed. It is also argued that the demarcation report clearly establishes that part of Survey No. 644/1, admeasuring 79 x 23 sq. ft., i.e. 1817 sq. ft., has been used for widening of the road. He would submit that as no compensation was paid either in the year 1967 or thereafter, the land acquisition proceedings which were initiated in the year 1967 got vitiated. According to the provisions of Section 24 of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (for short, referred to as the “Act, 2013”) the respondent authorities should initiate fresh proceedings for land acquisition. He would further pray that the present writ petition deserves to be allowed. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent No. 5 would oppose and submit that 79 x 23 sq. ft., i.e. 1817 sq. ft. of Survey No. 644/1, has 4 been used for widening of the National Highway, but the said part of the land was acquired by the respondent authorities in the year 1967 and notifications under Sections 4 and 6 were issued on 04.01.1967 and 16.06.1967. It is also argued that the record is not available with the department as the proceedings were initiated way back in the year 1967, but it is stated on affidavit by the respondent authorities that an award was passed at that point of time; therefore, fresh proceedings for acquisition of the land cannot be initiated. It is also contended that the petitioner kept silent for a considerable period and thereafter filed this petition. On this count, the present writ petition deserves to be dismissed. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the State would submit that the notifications which were issued under Sections 4 and 6 of the Act, 1894, have been placed on record along with the return. Therefore, the present writ petition deserves to be dismissed. 6. I have learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents. 7. Perusal of the demarcation report dated 20.09.2017 would show that 79 x 23 = 1817 sq. ft. of land from Survey No. 644/1 has been used for widening of the National Highway. The decision to widen the National Highway was taken prior to 2018. 8. Perusal of the documents placed on record by the State authorities would make it clear that notifications under Sections 4 and 6 of the Act, 1894, were issued on 06.01.1967 and 16.06.1967. However, there is no document to substantiate the fact that an award was passed. It is also stated that the land acquisition record of the year 1967 is not available. 9. The aforesaid notifications were published in the Official Gazette, and at that point of time, the petitioner had not raised any objection. After 5 around 50 years, the petitioner approached this Court claiming compensation. 10. Pursuant to the order passed in WPC No. 200/2017, demarcation was conducted and subsequently, an order was passed by respondent No. 5 on 13.11.2017 rejecting the claim of the petitioner. The respondent authorities considered the fact that the subject land had already been acquired in the year 1967 and that the subject land could not be reacquired by the respondent authorities. 11. The Supreme Court, in the matter of Indore Development Authority Vs. Manoharlal and Others, reported in (2020) 8 SCC 129, has held in paragraph 366.3 that in case possession has been taken and compensation has not been paid, then there is no lapse. Similarly, if compensation has been paid and possession has not been taken, then there is no lapse. 12. In the present case, it appears that the land was acquired in the year 1967 and an award was also passed, but possession was not taken and the respondent authorities took possession of the subject land in the year 2018. Therefore, on this ground alone, the petitioner shall not be entitled to claim compensation. Accordingly, the present writ petition fails and is hereby dismissed. Sd/-S (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge Jyoti