Dismissed¶56

Vinod Kumar Sharma v. State of Chhattisgarh

Chhattisgarh HC6 Nov 2025WPC/2514/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Mandamus for land-acquisition compensation refused; Sakti-Tundri Road, ADB Project, Village Kudhri, Tehsil Adbhar, District Sakti (CG); petitioners Vinod Kumar Sharma, Tara Bai, Naresh Kumar Agrawal, Deen Dayal Agrawal v. State of Chhattisgarh; Articles 226, 300-A, 14, 21 Constitution; Section 11 Land Acquisition Act 2013 award/notification absent; fact-finding committee spot inspection report 07.07.2025 found lands unaffected; Article 226 supervisory jurisdiction, disputed facts; writ dismissed, no costs; NAFR; neutral citation 2025:CGHC:54511; reserved 13.08.2025, delivered 07.11.2025.

What did the court decide?

None; the writ petition was dismissed as devoid of merits, with no order as to costs. ¶56

Vinod Kumar Sharma Vs State of Chhattisgarh — Land Acquisition | Chhattisgarh HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

None; the writ petition was dismissed as devoid of merits, with no order as to costs.

¶56

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioners are entitled to a direction for payment of compensation on the ground that their lands (described in Annexure P-2 and elsewhere, particularised by Khasra numbers) were acquired for the Sakti-Tundri Road under the ADB Project, or whether, as the respondents contend, their lands are in fact unaffected by the road project and therefore not liable for compensation.

¶47

Court's answer

Entitlement to compensation flows only upon statutory acquisition/award in respect of a specific parcel; the project-level proposal (Annexure P/1) establishes intention and the administrative step for initiating acquisition but is not decisively determinative without corroborative statutory action showing a particular cadastral description was included in an award notification and physically affected by the works.

¶48

Ratio / Principle

Although a proposal for construction of the Sakti-Tundri Road was forwarded by the Project Manager, ADB Project to the Collector, Sakti, the petitioners failed to produce any cogent material or documentary evidence showing that their specific parcels of land were acquired under the Land Acquisition Act or any other relevant statute.

¶49

Key takeaways

The Committee constituted on 30.06.2025 conducted a detailed spot inspection and categorically found that the lands of the petitioners are unaffected by the said road.ratio¶51
The existing road was already in place prior to the petitioners' purchase of their lands, and the road construction under the ADB Project was confined to the existing government land and the previously established road alignment.ratio¶51
When the competent authority, after due inspection, has found that the petitioners' lands are not affected by the project, the claim for payment of compensation cannot be sustained.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Chhattisgarh High Court, Bilaspur (Arvind Kumar Verma J.), WPC No. 2514 of 2025, CAV order delivered 07.11.2025 (NAFR; 2025:CGHC:54511): Writ petition under Article 226 seeking mandamus to release compensation for lands at Village Kudhri, Tehsil Adbhar, District Sakti, alleged to have been acquired for construction of the Sakti-Tundri Road under the ADB Project, Chhattisgarh Road Development Programme. Held: entitlement to compensation flows only upon statutory acquisition/award of a specific parcel; a project proposal (Annexure P/1) is relevant but not decisively determinative. Petitioners produced no award or notification under Section 11 of the Land Acquisition Act, 2013 or corresponding acquisition proceedings. A four-member committee (constituted 30.06.2025 by the Land Acquisition Officer, Malkharauda) inspected the site on 07.07.2025 and categorically found the petitioners' Khasra parcels unaffected: the existing road predated their purchases and the ADB construction was confined to existing government land and the established alignment. Article 226 jurisdiction is supervisory and will not resolve disputed questions of fact; relief cannot rest on mere assertions. No arbitrariness or illegality found; writ petition dismissed, no order as to costs.

2025:CGHC:54511

NAFR

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶5

WPC No. 2514 of 2025

¶6

ORDER RESERVED ON 13.08.2025

¶7

ORDER DELIVERED ON 07.11.2025 ORDER UPLOADED ON 07 .11.2025

¶8

1 - Vinod Kumar Sharma S/o Lt. Mahaveer Prasad Sharma Aged About 64 Years R/o Kharsiya, District Raigarh (C.G)

¶9

2 - Smt. Tara Bai W/o Vinod Kumar Sharma Aged About 62 Years R/o Kharsiya, District Raigarh (C.G)

¶10

3 - Naresh Kumar Agrawal S/o Lt. Babulal Agrawal Aged About 63 Years R/o Kharsiya, District Raigarh (C.G)

¶11

4 - Deen Dayal Agrawal S/o Kewal Ram Agrawal Aged About 83 Years R/o Kharsiya, District Raigarh (C.G)

¶12

... Petitioner(s)

¶13

versus

¶14

1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Public Works Development Department, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh

¶15

¶16

2 - Collector Sakti, District Sakti (C.G.)

¶17

3 - Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue) And Land Acquisition Officer Malkharoud, District Sakti (C.G.)

¶18

4 - Tehsildar Adbhar, District Sakti (C.G)

¶19

5 - Project Manager Adb Project, Chhattisgarh Road Development Project, Public Works Development Department, Bilaspur (C.G)

¶20

... Respondent(s)

¶21

For Petitioner(s)	: Shri Yogesh Chandra, Advocate
For Respondent/State	: Shri Satish Gupta, GA

¶22

(Hon’ble Shri Justice Arvind Kumar Verma)

¶23

C A V Order

¶24

The present writ petition has been preferred seeking issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent authorities to release the compensation amount in respect of the lands of the petitioners situated at Village Kudhri, Tehsil Adbhar, District Sakti (CG) which, according to the petitioners, were acquired for construction of the Sakti-Tundri Road under the ADB Project, Chhattisgarh Road Development Programme executed by the Public Works Department.

¶25

FACTUAL MATRIX

¶26

As pleaded in the petition, on 26.02.2021, the Project Manager, ADB Project, Chhattisgarh Road Development Programme had issued a proposal to the Collector, Sakti-Tundri Road. Pursuant thereto

¶27

¶28

proceedings for acquisition of land were initiated before the Tehsildar, Adbhar and it is the grievance of the petitioners that their lands were also included in the said acquisition proceedings.

¶29

It is the case of the petitioners that compensation awards were passed in their favour but despite lapse of considerable time, the respondents have failed to disburse the awarded compensation amount. The details of lands and the names of the petitioners as mentioned in the petition are as under:

¶30

Sl.	Name	Khasra No. &Area (hectares)
No.
1.	Vinod Kumar Sharma, S/o. Late Mahaveer Prasad Sharma	144/1 -0.026,328/4- 0.0036,328/5-0.036
2.	Smt. Tara Bai,W/o. Vinod Kumar Sharma	144/7-0.0018
3.	Naresh Kumar Agrawal, S/o. Late Babulal Agrawal	148/3-0.0018
4.	Deen Dayal Agrawal,S/o. Kewal Ram Agrawal	149-0.0248

¶31

It is further pleaded that representations dated 22.04.2025 were made to the competent authorities for release of the compensation but no action has been taken till date, compelling the petitioners to approach this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

¶32

SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER

¶33

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the lands of the petitioners were acquired for a public purpose ie. for construction of the Sakti-Tundri Road under the ADB Project. The acquisition proceedings

¶34

¶35

were duly initiated and finalized and the names of the petitioners were included in the award list. However, despite such acquisition and award, the compensation amount has not been released, thereby violating their constitutional right to property under Article 300-A of the Constitution.

¶36

The petitioners have relied on Annexure P/1 for the proposition that their lands were included in the acquisition exercise. The respondents have placed before this Court : (i) the proceedings of the Tehsildar and subsequent records of the Land Acquisition Officer (ii) the constitution order dated 30.06.2025 constituting the four member fact finding committee (Annexure R/1) and (iii) the spot inspection/investigation report dated 07.07.2025 (Annexure R/2) . Those documents together with the online revenue entire in respect of the relevant Khasra Nos. form the core material for adjudication of factual entitlement.

¶37

It is further contended that non-payment of compensation after acquisition is arbitrary, unreasonable and violative of Article 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India. Learned counsel for the petitioners seeks for a direction to the respondents to immediately release the compensation amount along with statutory interest.

¶38

SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT/STATE

¶39

Per contra, learned State counsel submits that the instant petition is misconceived and devoid of merits. It is submitted that the matter was

¶40

¶41

duly examined by the competent authorities. A four member Committee was constituted by the Land Acquisition Officer, Malkharauda, District Sakti on 30.06.2025 comprising the Tehsildar, Adbhar, Quality Supervisor, ADB Project, Bilaspur, Revenue Inspector, Adbhar/Sakkarra and Halka Patwai Village, Kudhri for conducting a joint spot investigation to ascertain whether the lands of the petitioners were in fact affected by the Sakti-Tundri Road construction.

¶42

The said Committee conducted a detailed spot inspection on 07.07.2025 and submitted its investigation report. Upon thorough examination, it was found that the lands of the petitioners were not affected by the Sakti-Tundri Road. The boundaries mentioned in their respective sale deeds clearly show that the lands were purchased leaving the existing road margin.

¶43

It is further submitted that the road in question was existed since the time of Mishal settlement and was originally constructed by the Public Works Department much prior to the alleged acquisition. Therefore, the lands of the petitioners are neither acquired nor affected by the construction and consequently, they are not entitled to any compensation.

¶44

FINDINGS AND CONSIDERATION

¶45

This Court has perused the pleadings, documents and the rival submissions advanced by the counsel for the parties. The short issue is involved in the present petition.

¶46

¶47

“whether the petitioners are entitled to direction for payment of compensation on the ground that their lands described in Annexure P-2 (and elsewhere) were acquired for the Sakti -Tundri Road under the ADB Project, or whether as the respondents contend, the petitioners’ lands (particularized by the Khasra numbers) are in fact unaffected by the road project and therefore, not liable for compensation”

¶48

Annexure P/1, is the proposal letter dated 23.06.2021 issued by the Project Manager, ADB Project, Chhattisgarh Road Development Programme to the Collector, Sakti, proposing development/construction of the Sakti -Tundri road and seeking necessary acquisition proceedings. It is a project level proposal of intended alignment and objective. The proposal Annexure P/1 establishes the intention and the administrative step for initiating acquisition, entitlement to compensation flows only upon statutory acquisition/award in respect of a specific parcel. Therefore, Annexure P/1 is relevant but not decisively determinative without corroborative statutory action showing that a particular cadastral description was included in the award notification and physically affected by the project works.

¶49

It is evident from the records that although a proposal for construction of Sakti-Tundri Road was indeed forwarded by the Project Manager, ADB Project to the Collector, Sakti, the petitioners have failed to produce any cogent material or documentary evidence showing that their specific parcels of land were acquired under the Land Acquisition Act or any other relevant statute.

¶50

¶51

The respondents, on the other hand, have placed on record the proceedings of the Committee constituted on 30.06.2025 which conducted a detailed spot inspection and categorically found that the lands of the petitioners are unaffected by the said road. The findings of the Committee reveal that the existing road was already in place prior to the purchase of the lands by the petitioners and that the road construction undertaken under the ADB Project was confined to the existing government land and the previously established road alignment.

¶52

In such circumstances, when the competent authority, after due inspection, has found that the petitioner’s lands are not affected by the project, the claim for payment of compensation cannot be sustained. The petitioners have not brought on record any award or notification under Section 11 of the Land Acquisition Act, 2013 or any corresponding proceedings showing that their lands were acquired by the State for public purpose.

¶53

It is well settled that the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution is primarily supervisory and not intended to resolve disputed questions of fact. In absence of any clear material showing acquisition of the petitioner’s lands, the relief sought cannot be granted merely on assertions.

¶54

In view of the findings of the official committee, and in absence of any proof of acquisition or award in respect of the petitioners’ lands, this Court finds no arbitrariness or illegality on the part of the respondents.

¶55

¶56

The plea of the petitioners seeking direction for payment of compensation is misconceived and devoid of substance. Accordingly, the writ petition stands dismissed being devoid of merits. No order as to

¶57

costs.

¶58

Sd/(Arvind Kumar Verma) Judge

¶59

Digitally signed by SUGUNA SUGUNA DUBEY DUBEY Date: 2025.11.07 17:45:29 +0530

Vinod Kumar Sharma v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vinod Kumar Sharma v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ramsunder Chouhan Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Niranjan Chauhan Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Nitu Srivastava (Pet. in Person) Vs Bar Council of India

Kamlesh Kumar Kurre Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Sagar Agriculture and Properties Pvt. Ltd. Vs Prakhar Jindal

Dhaneshwer Vs State of Chhattisgarh