1 2026:CGHC:17065 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 1829 of 2021 1 - Shiv Kumar Patel S/o Late Goverdhan Patel Aged About 69 Years R/o Village Khamhariya Tehsil Tamnar District Raigarh Chhattisgarh., District : Raigarh, Chhattisgarh. 2 - Dilip Kumar S/o Late Dinbandhu Aged About 60 Years R/o Village Khamhariya Tehsil Tamnar District Raigarh Chhattisgarh., District : Raigarh, Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary Revenue And Disaster Management, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Atal Nagar Chhattisgarh., Chhattisgarh. 2 - Collector Raigarh District - Raigarh Chhattisgarh., District : Raigarh, Chhattisgarh. 3 - Land Acquisition Officer - Cum - Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue) Gharghoda, District Raigarh Chhattisgarh., District : Raigarh, Chhattisgarh. RAGHVENDRA JAT Digitally signed by RAGHVENDRA JAT 2 4 - M/s Ambuja Cement Limited Office At Village Khamhariya Tehsil Tamnar District Raigarh Chhattisgarh., District : Raigarh, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Kamal Kishor Patel, Advocate. For Respondent(s)/State : Mr. D.R. Minj, Dy. A.G. Hon’ble Mr. Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Order on Board 15/04/2026 1. By way of this petition, the petitioners have prayed for following reliefs:- “10.1 That this Hon'ble court kindly be pleased to direct the respondents for providing benefit of Second and Third Schedule of Act, 2013, with interest. 10.2 Any other relief, which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper, may also be passed in favour of the petitioners.” 2. Brief facts of the case, is that, the petitioner No. 1 is the recorded owner of land bearing Khasra Nos. 52/6, 52/10, 52/12, 52/15, 53/3, 53/6, 53/9, 53/12, 53/15, 53/17, 73/2 (Ta) and 73/2 (Jha), admeasuring 0.049, 0.174, 0.057, 0.049, 0.170, 0.304, 0.056, 0.263, 0.033, 0.061, 0.049 and 0.200 hectares respectively, as reflected in the compensation chart at Serial No. 39, situated at Village Khamhariya, Tehsil Tamnar, District Raigarh; similarly, petitioner No. 2 is the recorded owner of land bearing Khasra Nos. 88/1 and 88/1 Ka, admeasuring 0.040 and 0.595 hectares 3 respectively, as reflected in the compensation chart at Serial No. 28, situated at the same village. The aforesaid lands were acquired vide Award dated 28.03.2017 passed in Revenue Case No. 01-A/67/2016-17 by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Gharghoda, District Raigarh (Chhattisgarh), a copy whereof along with the compensation chart. It is the grievance of the petitioners that the benefits envisaged under Schedule II of the Act, 2013 have not been extended to them. Further, the Office of the Commissioner issued a Memo dated 18.01.2017. It is submitted that in an identical matter, the Hon’ble Court, vide order dated 08.03.2021 passed in WPC No. 1373/2021, has granted relief, however, till date, the benefits under Schedules II and III of the Act, 2013 have not been granted to the petitioners, hence the present petition. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the present petition has been filed subsequent to the passing of the award dated 28.03.2017, being aggrieved by the non-grant of benefits contemplated under Schedule II of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (for short, “the Act, 2013”). It is contended that Section 38 of the Act, 2013 mandates that the rehabilitation and resettlement benefits, as prescribed under Schedule II, are required to be extended to the affected persons within a stipulated timeframe, and any delay in this regard is contrary to the statutory mandate. Learned counsel further submits that this Hon’ble Court, in its order dated 23.09.2016 passed in WPC No. 1717/2015 4 (Babulal Sahdev vs. State), has categorically fixed a time-bound framework for the consideration and implementation of rehabilitation benefits in accordance with the provisions of the Act, 2013. Placing reliance on the said judgment, it is urged that despite the clear legal position and binding directions, the respondents have failed to discharge their obligations within the prescribed period. Accordingly, learned counsel prays that, in line with the directions issued in Babulal Sahdev vs. State (supra), this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to direct the Government to initiate appropriate action against the erring officials responsible for the inordinate delay in implementing the rehabilitation scheme and in extending the statutory benefits to the petitioners. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the State submits that although the award was passed on 28.03.2017, the petitioners have not availed themselves of the appropriate statutory remedy by approaching the Collector for redressal of their grievances and have instead directly invoked the jurisdiction of this Hon’ble Court. It is contended that in the absence of any prior representation before the competent authority, the present petition is premature and not maintainable at this stage, as the petitioners ought to have first sought relief before the Collector in accordance with the procedure prescribed under the relevant provisions of law. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 5 6. Considering the fact that the award of acquisition was passed on 28.03.2017 and that the rehabilitation benefits, as contemplated under Schedule-II of the Act of 2013, were not granted, it is observed that although the award has already been passed, the petitioner has not yet approached the Collector, Raigarh. Accordingly, the petitioner is directed to file an appropriate application/representation before the Collector, Raigarh, seeking grant of the aforesaid benefits. Upon such application being filed, the Collector, Raigarh shall consider and decide the same in accordance with the provisions of the Act of 2013 and the law laid down by this Court in Babulal Sahdev (supra), within a period of four months from the date of receipt of the application. The petitioner shall also be at liberty to file a copy of the order passed in WPC No. 1717/2015 before the concerned authority for due consideration. 7. With the above observations/direction, this writ petition stands disposed of. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Raghu Jat