1 2026:CGHC:16246 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 1630 of 2020 Amit Agrawal S/o Hanuman Prasad Agrawal Aged About 40 Years R/o Sawaria Building, Ramniwas Talkies Road, Raigarh, District- Raigarh, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner versus 1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Public Works Depart- ment, Mahanadi Bhawan, Naya Raipur, Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - The Collector, Raigarh Tehsil And District- Raigarh, Chhattisgarh 3 - The Sub-Divisional Officer Raigarh, Tahsil And District- Raigarh, Chhattisgarh 4 - The Executive Engineer Public Works Department, Raigarh Division, District- Raigarh, Chhattisgarh ... Respondents (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner : Mr. Sourabh Sharma, Advocate For State/Respondents : Mr. Dilman Rati Minj, Dy. Advocate General Hon’ble Shri Amitendra Kishore Prasad, Judge Order on Board 09.04.2026 1 By filing the present petition, the petitioner calls in question the arbitrary, illegal and capricious action/inaction on the part of the respondent authorities, whereby they have taken over possession YOGESH TIWARI Digitally signed by YOGESH TIWARI Date: 2026.04.13 10:23:15 +0530 2 of the petitioner’s land for the purpose of construction activities, namely the widening of the Raigarh–Hamirpur Road, without following the due process of law and without awaiting the completion of the acquisition proceedings, thereby amounting to unlawful trespass upon the petitioner’s land and giving rise to issues incidental thereto. The petitioner has prayed for following relief(s) :- “10.1 the A writ and/or an order in the nature of appropriate records from the writ do issue calling respondent authorities concerned pertaining to case of the petitioner for perusal of this Hon'ble Court, if thinks fit in the facts & circumstances of case. 10.2 A writ and/or an order in the nature of writ of appropriate nature do issue quashing the action of the respondent State authorities in occupying the petitioner's land without completion of Land Acquisition proceeding and without following the due process of law being illegal, arbitrary and in violation of the petitioners' fundamental and constitutional rights. 10.3 A writ and/or an order in the nature of appropriate writ do issue directing the respondent authorities to comply with compensate their obligation by and suitably paying the petitioner the compensation and damages, as determined under the law, within 3 a time frame fixed by this Hon'ble Court, in the facts and circumstances of the case. 10.4 Cost of the proceedings. 10.5 Any other writs and directions that may be deemed fit and just in the facts & circumstances of case.” 2 Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is the lawful owner and recorded Bhumiswami of the land bearing Khasra No. 54 admeasuring 3.480 hectares situated at Village Sambalpuri, P.H. No. 31, Tahsil & District Raigarh, and his name stands duly recorded in the revenue records, for which Rin Pustika has also been issued by the competent Tahsildar. It is submitted that the petitioner’s title and possession over the said land are undisputed and duly evidenced from the documents placed on record. Despite the same, the respondent authorities, in a wholly arbitrary and high-handed manner, have encroached upon a portion of the petitioner’s land admeasuring 0.134 hectares for the purpose of widening of the Raigarh–Hamirpur Road. 3 Learned counsel further submits that the entire action of the respondent authorities is ex facie illegal and contrary to the mandate of law, inasmuch as the respondents have entered upon and taken over possession of the petitioner’s land without initiating or completing the mandatory land acquisition proceedings as contemplated under the provisions of the Right to 4 Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (in short “the Act of 2013”). It is contended that even the preliminary notification under Section 11 of the Act of 2013 has not been issued till date, and despite the same, the construction activity has been carried out in full swing. Such action, it is submitted, amounts to gross abuse of power and is dehors the statutory framework governing compulsory acquisition of land. 4 It is also submitted that the petitioner had promptly raised objections before the competent authorities as early as on 30.01.2019 and repeatedly brought to their notice that the construction activities were being undertaken without following due process of law. The petitioner also addressed subsequent representations dated 13.02.2019, 30.11.2019 and 11.12.2019, requesting the authorities to refrain from proceeding further without lawful acquisition and to grant appropriate compensation. However, the respondent authorities, in complete disregard of the petitioner’s legitimate grievances, failed to take any corrective steps and instead continued with the illegal construction, thereby depriving the petitioner of his property without authority of law. 5 Learned counsel submits that the action of the respondents in forcibly dispossessing the petitioner and utilizing his land without payment of compensation is violative of the petitioner’s constitutional and legal rights, particularly the right guaranteed 5 under Article 300-A of the Constitution of India. It is contended that the State cannot deprive a person of his property except by authority of law and upon payment of just compensation. The impugned action, being in clear violation of due process, also infringes Articles 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India, rendering the same arbitrary, unreasonable and unconstitutional. 6 Placing reliance on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Tukaram Kana Joshi & Ors. vs. Maharashtra Industrial Development Corporation & Ors., (2013) 1 SCC 353, learned counsel submits that the State cannot take possession of private property without following the procedure prescribed under law and any such act would amount to an abuse of power. It is further submitted that in Vidya Devi vs. State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors., (2020) 2 SCC 569, the Hon’ble Apex Court has categorically held that forcible dispossession of a person without due process of law is violative of human rights and the constitutional guarantee under Article 300-A, and that the State is under an obligation to compensate the landowner. 7 In view of the aforesaid facts and settled legal position, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the action of the respondent authorities is wholly arbitrary, illegal, malafide and unsustainable in the eyes of law, and the petitioner is entitled not only to restoration of his legal rights but also to grant of just and fair 6 compensation along with damages for the unauthorized use and occupation of his land by the respondents. 8 It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that despite service, no reply has been filed on behalf of the State controverting the averments made in the present petition, and thus the factual assertions of the petitioner remain un-rebutted. 9 On the other hand, learned State counsel submits that in view of the two communications issued by the concerned SDO, which indicate that the proceedings for acquisition of land and grant of compensation are underway, the present matter may be relegated to the authorities concerned. It is further submitted that the petitioner may be granted liberty to approach the competent authority for redressal of his grievance in accordance with law. 10 Having heard learned counsel for the parties at length and upon perusal of the pleadings and documents placed on record, it is noticed that despite sufficient opportunity, no reply has been filed on behalf of the State authorities to controvert the specific averments made by the petitioner. However, learned State counsel has invited attention of this Court to two communications issued by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Raigarh, placed on record as Annexures P/3 and P/5, which indicate that the proceedings for acquisition of the land in question as well as for grant of compensation are stated to be under process at the level of the Collector-cum-Land Acquisition Officer, Raigarh. 7 11 From a careful consideration of the aforesaid communications, it is evident that the respondent authorities themselves have acknowledged that the land acquisition proceedings had not attained finality at the relevant point of time and that the matter was at the stage of public hearing and preparation of the Social Impact Assessment Report, and thereafter at the stage of processing compensation. At the same time, it is not in dispute that the land of the petitioner has already been utilized for a public purpose, namely for construction/widening of the road, which prima facie reflects that possession of the land has been taken and construction activity has been carried out. 12 In view of the aforesaid factual position, this Court finds that the grievance of the petitioner primarily revolves around non- completion of acquisition proceedings and non-payment of compensation despite the land having been put to use by the State authorities. The communications issued by the Sub- Divisional Officer, Raigarh, clearly demonstrate that the competent authority i.e. the Collector-cum-Land Acquisition Officer, Raigarh, has already been apprised of the matter and the process for determination of compensation has been initiated, though not concluded. 13 Considering the aforesaid aspects of the matter, and particularly in light of the stand taken by the State through the aforesaid communications, this Court, without entering into the merits of the 8 rival contentions, deems it appropriate, in the interest of justice, to direct the competent authority to take the acquisition proceedings to their logical conclusion and to ensure that the petitioner is not deprived of his lawful entitlement to compensation. 14 Accordingly, the Collector-cum-Land Acquisition Officer, Raigarh, is directed to duly consider the case of the petitioner and to pass appropriate orders in accordance with law with regard to acquisition of the land in question and determination of compensation payable to the petitioner. It is made clear that while undertaking the said exercise, the competent authority shall strictly adhere to the procedure prescribed under the applicable law governing land acquisition and shall afford due opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, if so required. 15 It is further observed that since the land in question has already been utilized for a public purpose, the authorities shall ensure expeditious conclusion of the proceedings and disbursement of lawful compensation to the petitioner without any undue delay. The entire exercise, including passing of award and consequential steps for payment, shall be completed within a period of 120 days from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. 16 It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case and all issues are left open to be considered and decided by the competent authority in accordance with law. 9 17 With the aforesaid observations and directions, the instant writ petition stands disposed of. 18 There shall be no order as to costs. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Yogesh