1 2026:CGHC:20184-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WA No. 352 of 2026 Kamtaprasad Ratre S/o Nanku Ram, Aged About 69 Years R/o Village Baroda, Tehsil Arang, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh ... Appellant versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of Housing And Environment, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Post And P S Mandir, Hasaud, Chhattisgarh. 2 - Naya Raipur Development Authority, Through-Chief Executive Officer, Rajdhani Parisar, Sector-19, Naya Raipur, District-Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 3 - Manager Land, Naya Raipur Development Authority, Naya Raipur, Dist. Raipur, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondents For Appellant : Ms.Surya Kawalkar Dangi, Advocate For Respondent No.1-State For Respondents No.2 and 3 : : Mr.Praveen Das, Additional Advocate General Mr.Animesh Tiwari, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, Judge Judgment on Board BABLU RAJENDRA BHANARKAR Digitally signed by BABLU RAJENDRA BHANARKAR Date: 2026.04.30 18:15:05 +0530 2 Per Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice 30.04.2026 1. Heard Ms.Surya Kawalkar Dangi, learned counsel for the appellant as well as Mr.Praveen Das, learned Additional Advocate General appearing for respondent No.1/State and Mr.Animesh Tiwari, learned counsel appearing for respondents No.2 and 3. 2. The appellant has filed this writ appeal against the order dated 2.1.2026 passed by learned Single Judge in WPC No.1935/2016 by which learned Single Judge has dismissed the writ petition filed by the appellant herein / writ petitioner therein. 3. The facts, in a nutshell, are that the State Government floated the Naya Raipur Development Plan, 2021 (for short, NRDP) and issued the Naya Raipur Rehabilitation Policy and also made an Empowered committee to took decision to provide an additional rehabilitation package. According to Clause 2 of the Agenda No.3 dated 10.04.2013 of the meeting of High Power Empowered Committee, a decision was taken to provide ex gratia to the persons who were encroached on Government land prior to 01.11.1992. The amount of such ex gratia was to be calculated on the basis of the Collector Guidelines for the year 2011–12. The appellant was in possession of 1.92 hectares of Government land prior to 01.11.1992, situated at village Baroda, Tehsil Arang. The appellant applied for compensation in accordance with the decision dated 10.04.2013. After enquiry, the Revenue Authorities 3 found the appellant eligible to receive compensation and accordingly, an amount of ₹3.36 lakhs was paid to him pursuant to the order passed by Respondent No. 3 dated 25.04.2016 approved by respondent No.2. The appellant challenged the order dated 25.04.2016 along with the decision taken by the Board of Directors of the Naya Raipur Development Authority dated 28.03.2016, wherein it was resolved that encroachers on Government land would be eligible to receive ex gratia amount only and made a prayer to direct the respondents to grant the benefit of additional rehabilitation package to the writ petitioner as per order dated 15.05.2013 of the State Government and also made a prayer to set aside the decision taken by respondent No.2 in the meeting held by the Board of Directors on 28.03.2016 vide Agenda No.25 (Annexure P/2) and the decision taken by respondent No.2 in the meeting held by the Board of Directors on 29.04.2017 vide Agenda No.22 (Annexure R-2/1). 4. By the impugned order, learned Single Judge has dismissed the writ petition filed by the writ petitioner / appellant herein. Hence, this petition. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the impugned order suffers from serious legal infirmities and is liable to be set aside. It is submitted that the appellant is entitled to ex gratia compensation as per the Collector guidelines for the year 2011–12, and the finding that such persons are not entitled to compensation on the 4 basis of market value of land is wholly misconceived, as the appellant has never claimed market value of the land. It is further submitted that the guideline rate is distinct from market value, and this legal position has been clearly laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Madhya Pradesh Road Development Corporation v. Vincent Denial and others, (2025) 7 SCC 798. 6. It is contended by learned counsel for the appellant that the appellant has consistently sought compensation only as per the decision of the Committee dated 10.04.2013, i.e., the guideline rate applicable for 2011–12, and not the market value of the land. Therefore, the reasoning adopted in the impugned order proceeds on an erroneous assumption. Learned counsel further submits that the impugned order proceeds on the basis that the Board decision (Agenda No. 25) constituted a valid clarification, without first determining the crucial jurisdictional issue as to whether NRDA had any authority or competence to alter the decision of the State Government. It is submitted that this fundamental issue, specifically raised in the writ petition, has not been adjudicated by learned Single Judge. It is further argued that NRDA, being a statutory authority under the Nagar Tatha Gram Nivesh Adhiniyam, 1973, is bound by the directions of the State Government, as held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of M.P. and others v. Kewal Yadav, (2004) 11 SCC 317. In the absence of any statutory competence, NRDA could not have substituted or modified the compensation fixed by the State, and if any clarification was 5 required, the proper course was to seek clarification from the State Government. 7. It is further submitted that the High Power Empowered Committee had already fixed the guideline rate for 2011–12 at ₹17 lakhs per hectare, yet NRDA unilaterally altered the same through its Board decision, without any authority of law. The question regarding the validity of such alteration has not been adjudicated in the impugned order. Learned counsel also submits that the finding that the appellant accepted payment of ₹3.36 lakhs is irrelevant, as the appellant has not withdrawn the said amount, as specifically pleaded in the writ petition. It is therefore submitted that the learned Single Judge failed to decide the principal jurisdictional issue regarding the competence of NRDA to alter State policy and proceeded on irrelevant considerations such as market value, despite the fact that no such claim was ever raised by the appellant. In view of above, it is prayed that the writ appeal deserves to be allowed and the impugned order passed by learned Single Judge deserves to be set aside. 8. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for respondents No.2 and 3 opposes the submissions made by learned counsel for the appellant and submits that the impugned order is legal, well- reasoned, and does not suffer from any infirmity warranting interference by this Court. It is submitted that the appellant’s contention that he is entitled only to ex gratia compensation as per 6 the Collector guidelines for 2011–12 has already been correctly considered by learned Single Judge. The finding that the appellant is not entitled to claim compensation equivalent to market value of land is fully justified, as the statutory scheme does not envisage grant of market value in such cases. 9. Learned State Counsel submits that the entire argument of the appellant proceeds on an incorrect assumption that only the Committee decision dated 10.04.2013 is applicable. In fact, the matter was governed by the applicable policy framework and resolutions of the competent authority, which were duly considered while determining compensation. It is further contended that the plea regarding lack of jurisdiction of NRDA to issue clarifications or implement the scheme is without merit. The Board resolutions and administrative decisions were taken within the scope of statutory powers under the relevant provisions of the Nagar Tatha Gram Nivesh Adhiniyam, 1973, and in furtherance of implementation of State policy. Learned counsel further submits that the appellant has already accepted the benefit of compensation amount of ₹3.36 lakhs, and though it is stated that the same has not been withdrawn, the fact of entitlement and acceptance cannot be ignored while challenging the scheme of compensation. It is further argued that learned Single Judge has rightly held that the appellant was not entitled to claim market value and that the appropriate compensation has been determined strictly in accordance with the applicable policy, guidelines, and 7 administrative decisions. In view of the above, learned counsel submits that no jurisdictional error, illegality, or perversity is made out in the impugned judgment and the appeal deserves to be dismissed. 10.We have learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned order and other documents appended with writ appeal. 11.From perusal of the impugned order, it is evident that learned Single Judge has recorded a clear finding that a bare reading of the relevant clause demonstrates that land oustees are entitled only to ex gratia compensation as per the Collector Guidelines for the year 2011–12, and there is no provision or indication entitling such persons to compensation on the basis of the market value of the land. Learned Single Judge has further taken note of the decision of the Board of Directors of NRDA (Agenda No. 25, Exhibit P-10, Page 44), wherein it was clarified that land oustees/encroachers are not entitled to compensation based on market value, but are entitled only to ex gratia amount in accordance with the applicable guidelines. It has also been observed that a conjoint reading of Clause 2 of Agenda No. 3 dated 10.04.2013 and Agenda No. 25 of the Board meeting dated 28.03.2016 clearly establishes that encroachers on Government land are entitled to ex gratia compensation based on the Collector Guidelines for the year 2011–12. 12.Learned Single Judge has further noted that the respondent 8 authority had already paid a sum of ₹3.36 lakhs to the petitioner, which was calculated in accordance with the directions, resolutions, and decisions issued by the State Government as well as the resolution of the High Power Empowered Committee dated 10.04.2013, applying the rate of ₹1.75 lakhs per hectare. It has also been observed that the State Government had taken a policy decision on 26.05.2010 regarding grant of ex gratia compensation, and the contention that such ex gratia amount is not contemplated under the 2011–12 guidelines was rightly rejected, as the same stood clarified through subsequent resolutions and administrative decisions of the competent authorities. Moreover, these orders and decisions were not challenged by the petitioner in the present proceedings. In view of the aforesaid findings, learned Single Judge concluded that the respondent authority had rightly assessed and disbursed the ex gratia compensation in accordance with the applicable policy framework and resolutions, and accordingly dismissed the writ petition. 13.Having considered the rival submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties, and upon careful perusal of the impugned order as well as the material placed on record, this Court is of the considered view that the findings recorded by learned Single Judge are well-reasoned, based on proper appreciation of the applicable policy framework, and do not suffer from any illegality, perversity, or jurisdictional error warranting interference in appeal. 9 14. Learned Single Judge has rightly held that the appellant is entitled only to ex gratia compensation as per the Collector Guidelines for the year 2011–12, and that there is no provision under the applicable scheme entitling the appellant to claim compensation on the basis of market value of land. The finding that the appellant’s claim is confined to ex gratia compensation and not market value is consistent with the statutory scheme and policy decisions governing the subject. 15.The contention of the appellant that learned Single Judge proceeded on an erroneous assumption relating to market value is without merit, inasmuch as the impugned order has merely clarified the nature of entitlement under the scheme, and has not adjudicated any claim of market value in favour of the appellant. Learned Single Judge has also rightly taken into consideration the relevant Board decision of NRDA (Agenda No. 25) as well as the resolutions dated 10.04.2013 and 28.03.2016, and has correctly concluded that encroachers/land oustees are entitled only to ex gratia compensation as per the Collector Guidelines for 2011–12. The compensation already paid to the appellant amounting to ₹3.36 lakhs has also been rightly taken into account as being in accordance with the applicable policy framework. 16.The contention of the appellant regarding lack of jurisdiction of NRDA to issue clarifications or implement policy decisions is also without substance. Learned Single Judge has rightly held that the 10 Board resolutions and administrative decisions were taken within the framework of the statutory scheme under the Nagar Tatha Gram Nivesh Adhiniyam, 1973, and in furtherance of State policy. Therefore, no jurisdictional infirmity can be attributed to the impugned decision. 17.The reliance placed by the appellant on Vincent Denial (supra) is misplaced, as the said decision pertains to determination of compensation in a different factual and legal context and does not support the proposition that ex gratia compensation under a policy scheme can be equated with market value in the absence of statutory entitlement. 18.Similarly, the reliance placed on Kewal Yadav (supra) is also distinguishable on facts, as the said judgment deals with binding nature of State directions in a different statutory context and does not prohibit implementation or clarification of policy decisions by statutory authorities acting within delegated powers, as has been done in the present case. 19.Learned Single Judge has further correctly observed that the appellant’s acceptance of compensation amount of ₹3.36 lakhs, though not withdrawn, reflects implementation of the policy in question and cannot be ignored while examining the validity of the compensation determination. 20.In view of the aforesaid analysis, this Court finds no merit in the writ appeal. The findings recorded by learned Single Judge are 11 based on correct interpretation of the applicable policy, supported by material on record, and do not call for any interference. 21.Accordingly, the writ appeal being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. No cost(s). Sd/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Bablu