1 CGHC010102302021 2026:CGHC:41745 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 2126 of 2021 1 - Pratap Kumar Lalchandani S/o Surat Ram Lalchandani Aged About 60 Years R/o Tulsi Kunj Street , Bhagat Kawar Ram Nagar , Sindhi Colony , Bilaspur , District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of Revenue And Land Records , Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Naya Raipur , District Raipur Chhattisgarh. 2 - The Competent Authority Land Acquisition Cum Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue), District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh. 3 - Tha Tahsildar Bilaspur District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh. 4 - The Patwari Village Beltara, Tehsil Bilaspur, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh. 5 - National Highway Authority Of India Through The Project Director , Nhai Project Execution Unit Bilaspur , District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh., District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) ( Cause title taken from CIS Periphery) RUCHI YADAV Digitally signed by RUCHI YADAV 2 For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Shubhankar Singh on behalf of Mr. Manish Nigam, Advocate For Respondent /State : Mr. Hariom Rai, P.L. For Respondent No.5 : Mr. Dhiraj Kumar Wankhede, Advocate SB: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Order on Board 25/09/2026 1. By way of the present petition, the petitioner has prayed for following reliefs:- “10.1 That this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue an appropriate writ by setting aside the impugned award dated 01.08.2018 (ANNEXURE P-1) passed by the Respondent No. 2, so far as it relates to the petitioner. 10.2 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondents to produce the entire record pertaining to passing of the impugned award dated 01.08.2018. 10.3 Any other relief/ reliefs which may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case, may also be allowed.” 2. At the outset, learned counsel for the petitioner, on instructions, fairly submits that an alternative statutory remedy is available to the petitioner under Section 3G(5) of the National Highways Act, 1956. He further submits that, in view of the availability of such remedy, the petitioner does not wish to press the present petition and seeks liberty to avail the said remedy in accordance with law. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents has no objection to the submission made by learned counsel for the petitioner. 4. In view of the submission made by learned counsel for the petitioner and considering the availability of an alternative remedy under the 3 provisions of the National Highways Act, 1956, this Court is of the view that no adjudication on the merits of the challenge to the impugned award is called for at this stage. 5. Accordingly, the present petition is disposed of as not pressed with liberty to the petitioner to avail the alternative remedy available to him under the law by approaching the competent authority in accordance with law. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Ruchi