High Court of Chhattisgarh
Case Details
1 Digitally signed by NADIM MOHLE 2025:CGHC:39080 HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR NAFR WPC No. 1307 of 2019 1- (Deleted) Mohan Lal (Vide Order Date 08/02/2021). 2- (Deleted) Chhabi Lal (Vide Order Date 08/02/2021), District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 3- (Deleted) Nohar Das (Vide Order Date 08/02/2021), District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 4- Arjun S/o Mansa Ram Aged About 75 Years R/o Village Riko, P.H. No. 21, Tahsil Arang, District Raipur Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 5- Laxman S/o Late Madan Lal Aged About 75 Years R/o Village Riko, P.H. No. 21, Tahsil Arang, District Raipur Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 6- Rajkumar S/o Late Sundar Lal Sahu Aged About 43 Years R/o Village Riko, P.H. No. 21, Tahsil Arang, District Raipur Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 7- Shyamlal Dhidhi S/o Ashish Aged About 65 Years R/o Village Riko, P.H. No. 21, Tahsil Arang, District Raipur Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 8- Punaram Nishad S/o Tanagu Aged About 48 Years R/o Village Riko, P.H. No. 21, Tahsil Arang, District Raipur Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 9 - Shivprasad S/o Late Sukhchand Aged About 59 Years R/o Village Riko, P.H. No. 21, Tahsil Arang, District Raipur Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 10 - Khedu Ram S/o Meghau Aged About 82 Years R/o Village Riko, P.H. No. 21, Tahsil Arang, District Raipur Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 11 - Bhikhari S/o Derha Ram Aged About 68 Years R/o Village Riko, P.H. No. 21, Tahsil Arang, District Raipur Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 12 - Girdhari S/o Prahlad Suktel Aged About 41 Years R/o Village Riko, P.H. No. 21, Tahsil Arang, District Raipur Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 13 - Gautambudh S/o Prahlad Aged About 38 Years R/o Village Riko, P.H. No. Chhattisgarh. District 21, Arang, Raipur Tahsil 2 14 - Parwati S/o Prahlad Aged About 62 Years R/o Village Riko, P.H. No. 21, Chhattisgarh. Tahsil District Arang, Raipur 15 - Rasbai W/o Late Tijau Aged About 66 Years R/o Village Riko, P.H. No. 21, Tahsil Chhattisgarh. 16 - Sukwaro Bai Patel W/o Pardesi Aged About 57 Years R/o Village Riko, P.H. No. 21, Tahsil Arang, District Raipur Chhattisgarh. District Arang, Raipur ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of Housing And Environment, Mahanadi Bhawan, New Mantralaya, Naya Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 2 - Department Of Agriculture And Animal Husbandry Through Secretary, Government Of Chhattisgarh, Collectorate, Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 3 - District Collector Cum Officiating Dy. Secretary, Government Of Chhattisgarh, Collectorate, Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 4 - Atal Nagar Development Authority (Old Naya Raipur Development Authority) Through Its Chief Executive Officer, New Rajendra Nagar, Infront Of Vijeta Complex, Rda Building Raipur Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 5 - Land Acquisition Officer / Sub Divisional Officer Tahsil Arang, Abhanpur, Civil And Revenue District Raipur Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 6 - Commissioner Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s)
Legal Reasoning
: Mr. Sanjay Agrawal, Adv. For State For Respondent No.4 : : Mr. Shubham Bajpai, P. L. Mr. Anuroop Panda, Advocate Hon’ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 06/08/2025 1. The petitioners have filed this writ petition seeking quashment of the entire land acquisition proceedings in Land Acquisition Case No. 08/1982 of the year 2012-13, pertaining to Village Riko, PH No. 22, 3 Tehsil Arang, District Raipur, along with the Notification under Section 4 and declaration under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, (hereinafter referred to as "the Act, 1894" or "old Act"), as well as the award dated 31.12.2015 passed under Section 23 of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act, 2013" or "new Act"). 2. The undisputed facts are as follows:- i. A Notification under Section 4 of the Act, 1894, was issued on 21.03.2013 for the proposed acquisition of 128.39 hectares of land for public purpose, namely the development of Naya Raipur. ii. Before the further proceedings under the Act, 1894, could be undertaken, the Act, 2013, came into force with effect from 01.01.2014. iii. Under Section 24 of the Act, 2013, ongoing land acquisition proceedings could have been continued under the provisions of the said Act. However, the Land Acquisition Officer issued a declaration under Section 6 of the old Act on 03.01.2014. iv. Treating this declaration as one under Section 19 of the new Act, the Land Acquisition Officer proceeded with the matter and eventually passed an award on 31.12.2015. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that under Section 25 of the Act, 2013, the award must necessarily be passed within a period of 12 months from the date of declaration under Section 19. Even if the declaration dated 03.01.2014 under Section 6 of the old Act is treated 4 as one under Section 19 of the new Act, the award should have been passed on or before 03.01.2015. He would further submit that since the award was passed only on 31.12.2015, it is urged that the rigour of Section 25 comes into play, resulting in the lapse of the entire acquisition proceedings. 6. Learned counsel for the respondents would submit that the compensation has been assessed under the new Act, and, therefore, the petitioners have not suffered any pecuniary loss or prejudice. It is
Decision
argued that on this ground, the writ petition has no merit. 7. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents placed in the file. 8. It is a settled proposition of law that where a statute prescribes a particular manner for doing an act, it must be done in that manner or not at all. Reference in this regard may be made to Meera Sahni v. Lieutenant Governor of Delhi & Ors., (2008) 9 SCC 177. 9. In the matters relating to land acquisition, the mandatory provisions of the statute are required to be followed in their entirety. A landholder cannot be accused of acquiescing to the proceedings or be estopped from challenging the same merely on the ground that compensation was assessed fairly under the new Act. 10.If the law mandates, as in Section 25 of the new Act, that the award must be passed within 12 months from the date of the declaration 5 under Section 19, the same must be adhered to in letter and spirit. The language of Section 25 is clear and does not permit any deviation. 11.The main operative provision of Section 25 categorically prescribes that if the award is not passed within the said period, the entire acquisition proceedings shall lapse. In the present case, since the award was passed well beyond the prescribed time limit, the proceedings cannot be sustained. 12.In view of the above discussion, I have no hesitation in holding that the entire land acquisition proceedings stand vitiated for non-compliance with the mandatory provisions of Section 25 of the Act, 2013. 13.Accordingly, the land acquisition proceedings involved in the present case are hereby quashed. However, the respondents shall be at liberty to initiate fresh proceedings if they still require the land for a public purpose, in accordance with law. Sd/- Rakesh Mohan Pandey JUDGE NADIM