Dismissed¶32

Subodh Mishra, v. State of Chhattisgarh

Chhattisgarh HC2 Nov 2025WPC/6776/2007

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition (WPC No. 6776 of 2007, High Court of Chhattisgarh at Bilaspur, decided 3-11-2025, Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey) by Subodh Mishra challenging land acquisition notifications under Sections 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and acquisition proceedings No.10-A/82/2004-05 concerning land at Pali, District Korba, with South Eastern Coalfields Ltd. among respondents. Dismissed as not maintainable because the award dated 6.9.2007, passed by the Land Acquisition Officer before filing, was not challenged; petitioner free to pursue other legal remedies. Keywords: maintainability, Land Acquisition Act 1894 Section 4, Section 6, award not challenged, dismissal.

What did the court decide?

None; petitioner would be at liberty to take recourse to law. ¶32

Subodh Mishra, Vs State of Chhattisgarh — Land Acquisition | Chhattisgarh HC (2025)

¶1

Digitally signed by AJINKYA PANSARE Date: 2025.11.04 14:09:56 +0530

2025:CGHC:53648

NAFR

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶6

WPC No. 6776 of 2007

¶7

Subodh Mishra, S/o Shri Devchandra Mishra, Aged About 46 Years R/o Mahamaya Automobiles, Pali, District Korba, Chhattisgarh, Chhattisgarh

¶8

... Petitioner(s)

¶9

versus

¶10

State Of Chhattisgarh, Through The Secretary Revenue, Department Of Revenue, Mantralaya, D. K. S. Bhawan, Raipur Chhattisgarh, Chhattisgarh

¶11

Collector, Korba, District – Korba (Chhattisgarh)

¶12

Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue), Katghora, Tehsil Katghora, District Korba (Chhattisgarh)

¶13

Officer - In - Charge, Land Acquisition Branch, Korba, Distt. Korba, Chhattisgarh, District : Korba, Chhattisgarh

¶14

The South Eastern Coal Fields Ltd. Th. Its Chairman Cum Managing Director, S E C L Head Quarters, Seepat Road, Bilaspur Chhattisgarh, District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh

¶15

The Chief General Manager, South Eastern Coal Fields Ltd., Korba Area, Korba Chhattisgarh, District : Korba, Chhattisgarh

¶16

... Respondent(s)

¶17

For Petitioner	: Mr. Manoj Paranjpe, Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Kabeer Kalwani, Advocate
For State	: Mr. Pramod Shrivastava, Dy. G.A.
For Respondents No. 5 and 6	: Mr. Pankaj Singh, Advocate

¶18

¶19

Hon’ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Judgment On Board

¶20

3-11-2025

¶21

1) By way of this petition, petitioner has sought following reliefs:-

¶22

7.1) The Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to call for the entire records leading to passing of the impugned notifications as also the impugned land acquisition proceedings before this Hon'ble Court, for its kind perusal.

¶23

7.2) The Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue an + Tentorasi appropriate writ of certiorari quashing the impugned notifications under Sections 4 of the Act, 1894 (Annexure P- 3) and section 6 (Annexure P4) of the act and the entire land acquisition proceedings bearing No.10-A/82/2004-05, and declare the same as void and inoperative.

¶24

7.3) The Hon'ble Court may further kindly be pleased to restrain the respondents not to interfere with the petitioners' land without authority of law.

¶25

7.4) Cost of the petition may also be granted to the petitioners.

¶26

7.5) Any other relief which this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper may also kindly be granted to the petitioners, in the interest of justice.

¶27

2) Learned Senior counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that petitioner has challenged the land acquisition proceeding No. 10A/82/2009-05 including notifications issued under Sections 4 and 6 of The Land Acquisition Act, 1894. He further submits that Land

¶28

¶29

Acquisition Officer failed to comply with the mandatory provisions of the Act, 1894, therefore the entire proceeding is bad in law.

¶30

3) On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for respective respondents would oppose. They submit that award was passed on 6.9.2007 and thereafter this petition was filed but petitioner has not challenged the award, thus this petition is not maintainable.

¶31

4) Heard.

¶32

5) Taking into consideration the fact that award has been passed by the Land Acquisition Officer on 6.9.2007, prior to filing of the writ petition and same has not been challenged in this petition, in my opinion, this petition is not maintainable. Consequently, this petition stands dismissed . However, petitioner would be at liberty to take recourse to law.

¶33

Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) JUDGE

¶34

A j i n k y a

Subodh Mishra, v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Subodh Mishra, 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

Govind Ram Verma Vs Prahalad Janghel

Parmeshwar Patel Vs Prahalad Janghel

The United India Insurance Company Limited Vs Sukhram Chouhan

Magma H.D.I. General Insurance Company Limited Vs Neelima Mishra

Pankaj Kumar Ambast Vs State Of Chhattisgarh

H.P.Beohar Vs Chhattisgarh Infrastructure Development Corporation Limited And Ors.