1 CGHC010247152022 2026:CGHC:41796 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 3389 of 2022 1 - M/s Star Pyrotechnics Through Partner Ismail Mohammad @ Mohammad Ismail S/o Haji Nishar Mohammad Aged About 61 Years Address Plot No. 1, Ram Nagar, Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - Union Of India Through Its Secretary Ministry Of Road Transport And Highway, New Delhi. 2 - National Highway Authority Of India Through Project Director And Project Implementation Unit 51/96, Behind Bti College Shankar Nagar Raipur (C.G.) 3 - Regional Officer National Highway Authority Of India Anupam Nagar Raipur (C.G.) 4 - The Collector Raipur (C.G.) 5 - The Land Acquisition Officer Cum Sub Divisional Officer (Rev.) Abhanpur, District - Raipur (C.G.) ... Respondents (Cause-title taken from the Case Information System) ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- For Petitioner :- Mr. Nitesh Sahu, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Akhilesh Kumar, Advocate VISHAKHA BEOHAR Digitally signed by VISHAKHA BEOHAR 2 For Respondent-NHAI :- Mr. Dhiraj Kumar Wankhede, Advocate ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- SB- Hon'ble Shri Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Order On Board 25.09.2026 1. The petitioner has filed the present writ petition seeking, inter alia, a direction to the respondent authorities to initiate appropriate proceedings for determination and payment of compensation in respect of the land stated to have been utilized for construction/widening of National Highway No.53 under the Raipur-Durg Bharatmala Project. 2. Following reliefs have been prayed in this petition:- “10.1 This Hon'ble may kindly be pleased to call for the records of the case for the kind perusal of this Hon'ble Court. 10.2 This Hon'ble may kindly be pleased to issue an appropriate writ or order and direction to the respondent authority to initiate the proceeding for pay compensation to the petitioner in respect of land categorically mention in the petition. 10.3 Any other relief deemed fit in the facts and circumstances of the case may also be granted.” 3. The case of the petitioner, as pleaded in the writ petition, is that the petitioner is a registered partnership firm. The petitioner claims ownership over land bearing Khasra Nos.181, 183, 184, 185, 192/1, 192/2 and 663, having respective areas as mentioned in the revenue records. According to the petitioner, the aforesaid 3 lands are owned by the petitioner-firm. It is further pleaded that the respondent authorities issued a notification dated 06.09.2018 under Section 3-A of the National Highways Act, 1956, for acquisition of land for widening of National Highway No.53 into a six-lane highway under the Raipur-Durg Bharatmala Project. According to the petitioner, in the said notification Khasra Nos.184 and 185 were specifically shown, whereas Khasra Nos.192/1, 192/2 and 663, according to the petitioner, were also affected by the construction of the road. The petitioner submits that during the course of construction of the road, substantial portions of the aforesaid lands came within the road area. The petitioner, therefore, submitted a complaint before the concerned authorities on 14.03.2022, requesting appropriate action. Pursuant thereto, the Land Acquisition Officer directed physical inspection of the spot. The Revenue Inspector and the Patwari conducted spot inspection, prepared a panchnama/report and submitted the same before the competent authority. According to the petitioner, despite the aforesaid spot inspection and report, no effective action was taken by the concerned authorities for determining and paying compensation in respect of the land allegedly utilized for construction of the National Highway. It is, therefore, the grievance of the petitioner that, on the one hand, its land and superstructure have been affected by the road construction and, on the other hand, compensation has not been determined or paid in respect of the land actually utilized. 4 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the land has in fact been taken over and utilized for construction of the National Highway, whereas compensation in respect thereof has not been paid to the petitioner. It is submitted that the petitioner is not seeking any direction for payment of compensation in respect of land which has not been acquired or utilized, but only seeks determination of the actual extent of land utilized by the respondents and payment of compensation in accordance with law. 5. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2-NHAI submits that the possession of the land which is now being claimed by the petitioner has not been taken over by the respondent authorities. It is submitted that the acquisition proceedings in respect of the land actually required for construction of the National Highway have already been completed, compensation has been determined and the amount has been awarded/paid to the concerned landowners. As regards the remaining portion of land claimed by the petitioner, it is submitted that the same has neither been acquired nor taken over for construction of the National Highway and, therefore, no question of payment of compensation arises in respect thereof. 6. Thus, from the rival submissions, it is apparent that the principal controversy between the parties is with regard to the actual extent of the petitioner’s land which has been utilized or taken over for construction of the National Highway. The petitioner asserts that 5 additional portions of its land have been utilized, whereas the respondent-NHAI disputes the same and submits that such additional land has neither been acquired nor taken over. 7. In the considered opinion of this Court, the aforesaid factual controversy cannot appropriately be adjudicated merely on the basis of the rival pleadings. The same requires physical demarcation and verification at the spot by the competent revenue authority, with reference to the revenue records, acquisition proceedings, relevant maps and the actual construction carried out at the site. 8. In view of the aforesaid, respondent No.5, namely, the Land Acquisition Officer-cum-Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue), Abhanpur, District Raipur, is directed to undertake demarcation of the land in question in accordance with Section 129 of the Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code, 1959 and the procedure prescribed thereunder. 9. Before undertaking the demarcation, respondent No.5 shall issue due notice to the petitioner as well as the concerned respondents and shall afford them reasonable opportunity of being present and placing their respective claims and relevant documents before the authority. 10. The demarcation shall be carried out with reference to the relevant revenue records, maps, acquisition proceedings, the notification issued under the National Highways Act, the spot 6 inspection/panchnama already prepared, and the actual area utilized for construction of the National Highway. A proper demarcation report shall thereafter be prepared, clearly indicating the Khasra numbers and extent of land, if any, which has actually been acquired, taken over or utilized for construction of the National Highway. 11. The aforesaid exercise shall be completed within a period of 60 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 12. The State counsel is directed to communicate a copy of this order to respondent No.5 forthwith so as to enable compliance with the aforesaid direction within the stipulated period. 13. After completion of the demarcation, if it is found that any portion of the petitioner’s land, over and above the land already acquired and in respect of which compensation has already been determined/paid, has in fact been taken over or utilized for construction of the National Highway, the competent authority shall initiate appropriate proceedings for determination and payment of compensation in accordance with law. 14. Such proceedings, if required to be initiated, shall be undertaken after affording due opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and all other concerned parties. The competent authority shall thereafter determine the petitioner’s entitlement, if any, to compensation in accordance with the applicable provisions 7 of law and shall complete the said exercise within a further period of six months from the date of completion of the demarcation. 15. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the factual claim of the petitioner regarding the extent of land allegedly utilized for construction of the National Highway or on the petitioner’s entitlement to compensation. All such issues shall be determined by the competent authority strictly in accordance with law and on the basis of the outcome of the demarcation proceedings. 16. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of with the aforesaid directions. 17. No order as to costs. sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Vishakha