Prahlad Suktel Vs State of Chhattisgarh

¶1

1

¶2

2025:CGHC:51644

¶3

NAFR

¶4

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶5

WPC No. 5452 of 2025

¶6

Prahlad Suktel S/o Bhushan Lal Suktel, Aged About 76 Years R/o Ward No. 4, Village- Riko, Post- Paloda (Mandil Hasaud), Tahsil Arang, District Raipur (C.G.)

¶7

... Petitioner(s)

¶8

versus

¶9

1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Chief Secretary, Department Of Housing And Environment, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Naya Raipur, Raipur Distt. Raipur (C.G.)

¶10

2 - Department Of Agriculture And Animal Husbandary, Through Secretary, Government Of Chhattisgarh, Collectorate, Raipur (C.G.)

¶11

3 - District Collector-Cum-Officiating Dy. Secretary, Government Of Chhattisgarh, Collectorate, Raipur (C.G.)

¶12

4 - Land Acquisition Officer/ Sub- Divisional Officer, Tahsil Arang, Abhanpur, District Raipur (C.G.)

¶13

5 - Commissioner, Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.)

¶14

2

¶15

6 - Chief Executive Officer, Naya Raipur Development Authority, New Rajendra Nagar, Infront Of Vijeta Complex, Rda Building, Raipur (C.G.)

¶16

... Respondent(s)

¶17

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Sanjay Kumar Agrawal, Advocate For Respondent/State : Mrs. Upasna Mehta, Dy. G.A. For Respondent No.6 : Mr. Anuroop Panda, Advocate

¶18

Hon’ble Shri Justice Arvind Kumar Verma, Judge Order on Board

¶19

16/10/2025

¶20

With the consent of the parties, matter is heard finally.

¶21

The petitioner has filed this writ petition on the following reliefs:

¶22

“10.1. That the Hon’ble Court may kindly be

¶23

pleased to call the entire record of the case from the respondents.

¶24

10.2 This Hon’ble Court be pleased to quash the entire land acquisition proceedings vide case no. 8-A/82 year 2012-13, in village Riko P.H. No. 21, Tahsil Arang, DistrictRaipur (C.G.) including the proposed award dated 31.12.2015.

¶25

10.3 That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to hold that the entire land acquisition proceeding shall be lapsed due to respondent State has not followed the Section 25 of the Right to Fair

¶26

3

¶27

Compensation Act, 2013.

¶28

10.4 That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash the notification under Section 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.

¶29

10.5 That, this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to pass any other relief that this Hon’ble Court may please deem fit and proper.”

¶30

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is challenging the entire land acquisition proceeding initiated by the State Government without complying the mandatory provisions of Nagar Tatha Gram Nivesh Adhiniyam, 1973. The petitioner is also challenging the entire acquisition proceeding in Land Acquisition Case No.8-A/82 year 2012-13, in village Riko, PH No. 21, Tahsil Arang, District -Raipur because it is contrary to mandatory provision of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and the mandatory provisions of Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013. The petitioner is also challenging the award dated 31.12.2015 passed by the SDO-Cum-Land Acquisition Officer, Arang/Abhanpur, District Raipur (C.G.) because the same has been passed within 12 months from the issuance of Section 6 notification. The respondent-State i.e. SDO-Cum-Land Acquisition Officer as well as the Collector, Raipur has not following the provisions of Section

¶31

4

¶32

25 of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013. This Court in WPC No. 791/2016 vide order dated 27.11.2018 has quashed the impugned Land Acquisition Proceedings in respect of several other villagers of the same village Riko. Thereafter, the said matter had challenged by the NRDA before the Division Bench which has also been dismissed by the Hon'ble Division Bench in WA No. 30/2019 on 25.07.2024. On the same footing the several land owners also challenged the said acquisition proceedings which is also being dismissed by the Co-ordinate Bench in WPC No.1307/2019. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has not received any compensation amount from the respondent authorities in respect of his land.

¶33

Learned counsel for the respondents opposes the contention raised by the counsel for the petitioner and submit that the compensation has been assessed under the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013. They further submit that the petitioner has not suffered any pecuniary loss, therefore, there is no good ground to entertain this petition at this stage.

¶34

Heard learned counsel for the respective parties at length and perused the record with utmost circumspection.

¶35

During the course of argument, learned counsel for respondent No.6 contended that respondent No.6 still required the land of the concerned village, however, he has placed some documents on

¶36

5

¶37

record and a copy of the same has been supplied to the counsel for the petitioner also. The said document is taken on record. The said document is a letter no. 6288 6(1)/भू�मि�-प्रभू�ग / NRANVP/2025, नया�रा�यापु�राअटलनगरा issued by the respondent no. 6 on 11.07.2025 to respondent no.4 and Nayab Tahsildar which reads as under: "उपुरा�क्तवि�षया��तग�तल�खहै��नन�याउच्चन्या�या�लयाद्वा�रा� WA No. 30/2019 �! पु�रिरातआदे�शके�पुरिरापु�लन�! वि�मि' अन�सा�राके�या � �है�केरान�के�केष्टकेरा!।सा�थहै�अ�गतहै�विके ग्रा��-रा�के�भू�-अर्ज�नप्रकेराणक्र��के-08/अ-82 �ष� 201213 �! पु�रिरातअ�0र्ड�दिदेन��के 31.12.2015 के�विनरास्तविकेया� गया�है�।प्रकेराण�! के�लख�त�दे�रा-122. के�लखसारा�न�.-256, के�ल राकेबा�-123.48 है�. है�त� अ��र्ड� रा�शिश रूपुया� 2,71,41,400 के� 'न�दे�श क्र��के-032211 दिदेन��के 28.09.2011 ए��रा�शिशरूपुया� 63,72,65,090 के�'न�दे�श क्र��के-062790 दिदेन��के 23.01.2016 इसाप्रके�राके�ल रा�शिश 66,44,06,490 रूपुया�के�या��लयाभू�-अर्ज�नके�या��लया�! र्ज��विकेया�र्ज�चु�के�है�।के: पुया�उक्तरा�शिशइसाके�या��लयाके� ��पुसाकेरान�के�केष्टकेरा!।"

¶38

Learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to the order dated 06.08.2025 passed by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in WPC No. 1307 of 2019 wherein this Court has held in para 12 and 13 which reads as under:

¶39

“12. In view of the above discussion, I have no hesitation in holding that the entire land acquisition proceedings stand vitiated for noncompliance with the mandatory provisions of Section 25 of the Act, 2013.

¶40

Accordingly, the land acquisition

¶41

6

¶42

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.”

¶43

Looking to the entire facts and circumstances of the case and above submissions of the counsels, it is crystal clear that the mandatory provision of Section 25 of the Act, 2013 categorically prescribes that if the award is not passed within the said period, the entire acquisition proceedings shall lapse. Therefore, this Court held that the entire land acquisition proceedings stand vitiated for non-compliance with the mandatory provisions of Section 25 of the Act, 2013. 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 relevant law.

¶44

In view of above, present petition is disposed of with the above observation/direction.

Sd/-

(Arvind Kumar Verma)

JUDGE

J.

Prahlad Suktel v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Prahlad Suktel 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Bhanu Pratap Singh Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Ram Baswan Vs State of Chhattisgarh

M/S Singhal Steel and Power Pvt. Limited Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Kamal Ram Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Dr. Krishna Kumar Verma Vs Chhattisgarh Lok Aayog

Ramesh Kumar Sahu Vs State of Chhattisgarh