1 2026:CGHC:17567 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 1144 of 2021 1 - Dhumra S/o Sadhram Aged About 65 Years R/o Village Saradih Tehsil Dabhara District Janjgir Champa Chhattisgarh., District : Janjgir- Champa, Chhattisgarh 2 - Dorilal S/o Bundram Aged About 50 Years R/o Village Saradih Tehsil Dabhara District Janjgir Champa Chhattisgarh., District : Janjgir- Champa, Chhattisgarh 3 - Hemlata W/o Vijay Aged About 40 Years R/o Village Saradih Tehsil Dabhara District Janjgir Champa Chhattisgarh., District : Janjgir- Champa, Chhattisgarh 4 - Rikhiram S/o Siyaram Aged About 46 Years R/o Village Saradih Tehsil Dabhara District Janjgir Champa Chhattisgarh., District : Janjgir- Champa, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Department Of Revenue And Disaster Management Mahanadi Bhawan New Raipur District Raipur Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - Collector Janjgir Champa, District Janjgir Champa Chhattisgarh., District : Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh 3 - Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue) Dabhara District Janjgir Champa Chhattisgarh., District : Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh Digitally signed by SHAYNA KADRI 2 4 - Executive Engineer Water Resource Survey And Barrage Construction Division No. 1, Kharsiya District Raigarh Chhattisgarh., District : Raigarh, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) (Cause Title is taken from CIS System) For Petitioner : Mr. Kamal Kishore Patel, Advocate For State : Ms. Akanksha Verma, Panel Lawyer Hon’ble Mr. Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Order on Board 17/04/2026 1. The petitioners have filed this writ petition seeking following reliefs: “10.1 That this Hon'ble court kindly be pleased to direct the respondents for taking decision upon the representation of the petitioner. 10.2 Any other relief, which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper, may also be passed in favour of the petitioner.” 2. Facts of the case, as emerging from the writ petition, are that the present petition has been filed by the petitioners, who are recorded owners of different parcels of land situated in Village Saradih, Tahsil Dabhara, District Janjgir-Champa. Petitioner No. 1 is the owner of land bearing Khasra Nos. 354/2 and 381/3 3 admeasuring 0.093 hectare and 0.012 hectare respectively. Petitioner No. 2 owns land bearing Khasra Nos. 381/5, 352/1ka and 353/1ka admeasuring 0.008 hectare and 0.016 hectare respectively. Petitioner No. 3 is the owner of land bearing Khasra No. 386/7 admeasuring 0.020 hectare, while Petitioner No. 4 owns land bearing Khasra Nos. 427/4 and 390/19 admeasuring 0.069 hectare and 0.016 hectare respectively. All the aforesaid lands fall within the area proposed to be acquired for submergence under the Saradih Barrage project. The respondents initiated proceedings for purchase of land under the Land Purchase Policy, 2016 through mutual consent. In furtherance thereof, the Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue), Dabhara issued a public notice dated 11.11.2020 inviting claims and objections in respect of the proposed acquisition. It is the grievance of the petitioners that while determining compensation, the respondent authorities have failed to adhere to the applicable government guidelines. Despite the fact that certain portions of the petitioners’ lands are less than 500 square meters in area, the respondents have applied the hectare-based rate instead of the prescribed square meter rate, resulting in substantial reduction of compensation. Additionally, an arbitrary deduction of 30% has been made from the land value, which according to the petitioners, is wholly illegal and without any statutory basis. Though representations were submitted before the competent 4 authority raising these objections, no corrective action has been taken, compelling the petitioners to approach this Court. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the impugned action of the respondents is arbitrary, illegal and violative of settled principles governing determination of compensation. It is contended that as per the guidelines issued by the Central Valuation Board for the years 2018–19 and 2019–20, lands having an area less than 500 square meters are required to be valued on a square meter basis. However, in the present case, the respondents have wrongly applied hectare-based rates, thereby depriving the petitioners of just and fair compensation. It is further submitted that the deduction of 30% from the market value of the land is wholly unjustified and contrary to law. There exists no provision under the applicable statutory framework or guidelines permitting such reduction. On the contrary, the prevailing trend reflects an increase in market value, and therefore, any reduction in valuation is arbitrary and without basis. It is argued that such deduction has been made mechanically, without conducting any survey or assessment, rendering the entire exercise illegal. Learned counsel also places reliance on an order dated 14.10.2020 passed in WPC No. 2361/2020, wherein in an identical matter, this Court directed the authorities to revise the compensation in accordance with the applicable guidelines. Pursuant thereto, the authorities had prepared an 5 amended compensation chart in compliance with the said directions. It is submitted that the present case stands on identical footing, and therefore, the petitioners are entitled to similar relief. It is further contended that the respondents have failed to act in accordance with Para 4 of the Second Schedule of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, which mandates fair determination of compensation. The Land Acquisition Officer is bound to follow the guidelines issued by the Central Valuation Board and ensure parity in awarding compensation in similar cases. The failure to do so in the present matter renders the impugned action discriminatory and unsustainable in law. On these grounds, learned counsel for the petitioners prays for appropriate directions to the respondents to re-determine the compensation in accordance with the applicable guidelines and law. 4. Learned State counsel, while opposing the petition on merits, submits that the issues raised by the petitioners primarily pertain to determination and calculation of compensation, which involves factual adjudication by the competent authority. It is contended that the petitioners have already submitted representations before the concerned authority ventilating their grievances with regard to alleged improper fixation of compensation. However, learned State counsel submits that she has no objection to the limited 6 relief as prayed by petitioner vide para 10.1 of the writ petition, seeking direction to the the competent authority to consider and decide the pending representations of the petitioners in accordance with law. It is further submitted that the competent authority shall examine the grievances of the petitioners in the light of applicable rules, guidelines and relevant material, and pass a reasoned and speaking order within a reasonable time frame, if so directed by this Court. 5. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and upon perusal of the record, it is evident that the grievance of the petitioners primarily pertains to alleged improper determination of compensation in respect of their lands proposed to be acquired for the Saradih Barrage project. The petitioners have specifically raised objections with regard to application of hectare-based rates instead of square meter rates for smaller parcels of land and also assailed the deduction of 30% from the assessed land value. 6. From the record, it further transpires that the petitioners have already submitted a detailed representation before the competent authority on 15.02.2021 ventilating their grievances. In the considered opinion of this Court, the issues raised by the petitioners involve disputed questions of fact relating to determination of compensation, which are required to be examined by the competent authority in the first instance in accordance with applicable statutory provisions and guidelines. 7 This Court, in exercise of its writ jurisdiction, would not be inclined to adjudicate such factual aspects at this stage, particularly when an efficacious remedy in the form of consideration of representation is available to the petitioners. Learned State counsel has also fairly submitted that the State would have no objection if a direction is issued to the competent authority to consider and decide the pending representation of the petitioners within a stipulated time. 7. In view of the aforesaid, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the present writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the concerned competent authority to consider and decide the representation, submitted by the petitioners on 15.02.2021 in accordance with law, if not decided yet, by passing a reasoned and speaking order, within a period of 45 days from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. 8. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the matter and all issues are left open to be decided by the competent authority. 9. With this observation and direction, this petition stands disposed of. No orders as to cost. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Shayna Judge