RUKHSAR v. State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary Revenue And Disaster Management

: Mr. Dev Ashish Biswas, Adv. For State/ Respondent Nos.1 to 3 : Mr. Anadi Sharma, Panel Lawyer. (Hon’ble Shri Justice Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi) 06/02/2026 Order on Board

1. Heard.

2. This petition has been preferred by petitioners under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking following reliefs:- “10.1 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to call for the entire records of the case of the petitioner.

10.2 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash the order dated 7/11/2025 (Annexure-P/1) passed by the Collector Surguja Division District Surguja C.G (respondent no 2).

10.3 That this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to remand back the case to Collector Surguja Division District Surguja C.G (respondent no.2) and to direct the respondent no.2 to decide the application of the petitioner on its merits so as to award the parties proper compensation.

10.4 That this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent authorities to grant adequate compensation to the petitioner.

10.5 That, any other relief which this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper may also kindly be granted to the petitioner in the interest of justice along with cost of the petition.”

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that Ghasi, son of Budhram, was maternal uncle (mama) of petitioners No.1, 2 and 3. He 3 died issueless. His land bearing khasra No.873/35, Rakba 2.072 hectares was allegedly fraudulently mutated in the name of Rama Das, son of Thurchu, who was the father of respondents No.4 to 7. He would further submit that since the subject land, which was owned by late Ghasi, has been fraudulently got recorded by Rama Das (father of respondents No.4 to 7) in his name, therefore, in the award Rama Das has been held entitled to get compensation, whereas the said land of Ghasi, which has been acquired for respondent No.9, also contains the share of petitioners. He further submitted that, in this regard, the petitioners had filed an application before the Collector, Sarguja (CG) bearing Case No.202511020300006/10/B-121/2025-26 (Annexure -P/1), which has been rejected by the Collector, Sarguja holding therein that he has no jurisdiction to decide the issue and directed the petitioners to file an appropriate suit before the appropriate Court. It is further submitted that the dispute pertains only to apportionment of compensation and, therefore, the Collector ought to have referred the case to the competent authority under Section 64 of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (henceforth referred to as “Act, 2013”). Hence, learned counsel prays that this petition be admitted for hearing.

4. Learned State counsel supported the impugned order.

5. During the course of submissions, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners contended that the land of late Ghasi was recorded by Rama Das in his own name, whereas the petitioners are also entitled to get share in the said land. In land acquisition proceedings, compensation is assessed in the name of the recorded owner. If Rama Das is the recorded owner of the said land bearing khasra No.873/35, 4 Rakba 2.072 hectares, and the petitioners are also claiming title to the extent of their share therein, but the extent of petitioners’ ownership right/share over the land in question can only be determined by a civil Court, and only after such determination, it can be ascertained that the petitioners are entitled to get any compensation of land in question upto their share, if any. Though Section 63 of the Act, 2013 bars the jurisdiction of the civil court only in respect of matters relating to acquisition proceedings and does not bar adjudication of inter se disputes between co-sharers regarding title or apportionment of compensation. Hence, it is found that the Collector, Sarguja has rightly rejected the application filed by the petitioners and directed them to file appropriate suit before the appropriate Court.

6. In view of the above, this Court is not inclined to entertain the instant petition, hence the same is dismissed.

7. Pending interlocutory application(s), if any, also stands disposed of. No order as to cost(s). Sd/- (Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi) Judge Rukhsar