Dismissed¶39

Subodh Mishra v. State of Chhattisgarh

Chhattisgarh HC7 Jan 2026WA/969/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

CGHC Bilaspur DB, WA No. 969 of 2025, decided 08.01.2026 (Ramesh Sinha CJ; Arvind Kumar Verma J): Subodh Mishra v. State of Chhattisgarh & others incl. SECL — maintainability of post-award writ challenge to land acquisition proceeding No. 10-A/82/200905 (Land Acquisition Act 1894, Sections 4 and 6; Part VII; Section 5-A); award of 06.09.2007 confers finality and vesting; post-award writ interference requires exceptional circumstances (fraud or demonstrable inherent lack of jurisdiction); Part VII/Section 5-A lapses held procedural, not void-ab-initio defects; writ appeal dismissed, upholding Single Judge's dismissal of WPC No. 6776/2007 as not maintainable.

What did the court decide?

No relief granted to the appellant; appeal dismissed, with no order as to costs. ¶39

Subodh Mishra Vs State of Chhattisgarh — Land Acquisition | Chhattisgarh HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

No relief granted to the appellant; appeal dismissed, with no order as to costs.

¶39

Issue for consideration

Whether the appellant's post-award challenge to the land acquisition proceedings (award dated 06.09.2007 having been passed much prior to the filing of the writ petition) is maintainable in writ jurisdiction, interference after the award being permissible only in exceptional circumstances such as fraud or a demonstrable and inherent lack of jurisdiction. +1 more

¶35

Court's answer

Once an award is passed, the land acquisition proceedings attain finality and the land vests absolutely in the State free from all encumbrances.

¶35

Ratio / Principle

Interference in writ jurisdiction after passing of the award is permissible only in exceptional circumstances such as fraud or a demonstrable and inherent lack of jurisdiction; no such exceptional circumstance was pleaded or established by the appellant.

¶37

Key takeaways

Alleged non-compliance with Part VII or Section 5-A of the Act, even if assumed for the sake of argument, would not render the acquisition void ab initio; such contentions pertain to procedural irregularities which ought to have been raised at the appropriate stage and cannot be permitted to be agitated after the proceedings have culminated in an award.ratio¶38
The appellant's attempt to characterize the alleged statutory violations as jurisdictional defects is misconceived and appears to be an afterthought to circumvent the settled bar against post-award challenges.ratio¶38

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ Appeal (WA No. 969 of 2025), High Court of Chhattisgarh at Bilaspur, Division Bench (per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice, with Arvind Kumar Verma, Judge), decided 08.01.2026 — appeal against the order dated 03.11.2025 of the learned Single Judge dismissing WPC No. 6776/2007, wherein the petitioner had challenged land acquisition proceeding No. 10-A/82/200905, including notifications under Sections 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. Held: the award was passed by the Land Acquisition Officer on 06.09.2007, much prior to the filing of the writ petition, so the challenge was clearly post-award; once an award is passed the proceedings attain finality and the land vests absolutely in the State free from all encumbrances; interference in writ jurisdiction after the award is permissible only in exceptional circumstances such as fraud or a demonstrable and inherent lack of jurisdiction, none of which was pleaded or established. Further held: alleged non-compliance with Part VII or Section 5-A of the Act, even if assumed, would not render the acquisition void ab initio, being procedural irregularities to be raised at the appropriate stage; characterizing such violations as jurisdictional defects is misconceived and an afterthought; and, absent statutory nullity or lack of authority, the contention that a void process cannot culminate in a valid award is inapplicable. Appeal dismissed; no order as to costs.

2026:CGHC:1103-DB

NAFR

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶5

ROHIT KUMAR CHANDRA

¶6

Digitally signed by ROHIT KUMAR CHANDRA

¶7

WA No. 969 of 2025

¶8

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

¶9

... Appellant

¶10

versus

¶11

1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through Its Secretary (Revenue) Department of Revenue Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar Raipur, DistrictRaipur Chhattisgarh,

¶12

2 - Collector Korba District- Korba (Chhattisgarh)

¶13

3 - Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue) Katghora Tehsil Katghora DistrictKorba Chhattisgarh,

¶14

4 - Officer In Charge Land Acquisition Branch Korba District- Korba Chhattisgarh,

¶15

5 - The South Eastern Coal Fields Limited Through Its Chairman Cum Managing Director, SECL Head Quarters, Seepat Road Bilaspur Chhattisgarh,

¶16

6 - The Chief General Manager South Eastern Coal Fields Limited, Korba Area, Korba, Chhattisgarh,

¶17

... Respondents

¶18

(Cause-title taken from Case Information System)

¶19

For Appellant : Mr. Kabeer Kalwani, Advocate For Respondents/State : Mr. Praveen Das, Addl. Advocate General For Respondents/SECL : Mr. Pankaj Singh, Advocate

¶20

Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Arvind Kumar Verma, Judge

¶21

¶22

Judgment on Board

¶23

Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice

¶24

0 8 .01.2026

¶25

1 Heard Mr. Kabeer Kalwani, learned counsel for the appellant. Also heard Mr. Praveen Das, learned Additional Advocate General, appearing for the respondents/State and Mr. Pankaj Singh, learned counsel, appearing for the respondents/SECL.

¶26

2 By way of present writ appeal under Section 2 of Sub-Section (1) of the Chhattisgarh High Court (Appeal to Division Bench Act, 2006, the appellant, who was writ petitioner in the writ petition, has challenged the order dated 03.11.2025 passed by learned Single Judge in WPC No.6776/2007 (Subodh Mishra Vs. State of Chhattisgarh & Others) , by which the writ petition filed by the writ petitioner/appellant herein has been dismissed by the learned Single Judge.

¶27

3 Brief facts necessary for disposal of this appeal are that the petitioner by way of writ petition bearing WPC No. 6776 of 2007 has challenged the land acquisition proceeding No. 10-A/82/200905 including notifications issued under Sections 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 on the ground that Land Acquisition Officer failed to comply with the mandatory provisions of the Act, 1894. Taking into consideration the fact that award has been passed by the Land Acquisition Officer on 06.09.2007, prior to filing of the writ petition and same has not been challenged in the

¶28

¶29

said writ petition, the learned Single Judge has dismissed the said writ petition vide impugned order dated 03.11.2025 as not maintainable. However, the petitioner was granted liberty to take recourse to law. Being aggrieved by the said order passed by the learned Single, the instant appeal has been preferred by the writ petitioner/ appellant.

¶30

4 Learned counsel for the appellant vehemently argued that the learned Single Judge erred in dismissing the writ petition solely on the ground that an award dated 06.09.2007 had been passed prior to the filing of the writ petition, without examining the jurisdictional defects and statutory violations relating to Part VII, Section 5-A, and the invalidity of the notifications. He further submits that jurisdictional errors cannot be cured by the mere passing of an award. He also submits that the learned Single Judge failed to appreciate that when the acquisition is fundamentally void due to non-compliance with mandatory statutory provisions, the existence of an award does not bar the challenge. A void process cannot culminate in a valid award. Hence, the writ petition was maintainable.

¶31

5 On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents/State as well as learned counsel, appearing for respondents/SECL vehemently opposed the submissions advanced on behalf of the appellant and submitted that the appellant’s submissions are wholly misconceived and contrary to settled law. The learned

¶32

¶33

Single Judge rightly dismissed the writ petition on the sole and sufficient ground that the award dated 06.09.2007 had been passed prior to the filing of the writ petition. They further submit that it is well settled that once an award is passed, the acquisition proceedings attain finality and cannot be reopened in writ jurisdiction, save in exceptional cases of fraud or total lack of jurisdiction, neither of which is pleaded or established here. The appellant’s attempt to label alleged procedural lapses under Part VII or Section 5-A as “jurisdictional defects” is merely an afterthought to overcome the bar against post-award challenges. They also submit that the contention that a void process cannot culminate in a valid award is wholly inapplicable in the absence of any demonstrated lack of authority or statutory nullity. Once the award is passed, the land vests in the State free from all encumbrances, and the writ petition was rightly held to be not maintainable.

¶34

6 We have considered the rival submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

¶35

7 It is not in dispute that the award in the present case was passed on 06.09.2007, much prior to the filing of the writ petition. The challenge to the acquisition proceedings was, therefore, clearly post-award. The law is well settled that once an award is passed, the land acquisition proceedings attain finality and the land vests absolutely in the State free from all encumbrances. Interference in

¶36

¶37

writ jurisdiction after passing of the award is permissible only in exceptional circumstances such as fraud or a demonstrable and inherent lack of jurisdiction. No such exceptional circumstance has been pleaded or established by the appellant.

¶38

8 The alleged non-compliance with Part VII or Section 5-A of the Act, even if assumed for the sake of argument, would not render the acquisition void ab initio. Such contentions pertain to procedural irregularities which ought to have been raised at the appropriate stage and cannot be permitted to be agitated after the proceedings have culminated in an award. The attempt of the appellant to characterize the alleged statutory violations as jurisdictional defects is misconceived and appears to be an afterthought to circumvent the settled bar against post-award challenges. In the absence of any statutory nullity or lack of authority, the contention that a void process cannot culminate in a valid award is inapplicable to the facts of the present case.

¶39

9 In view of the above discussion, we find no infirmity in the order passed by the learned Single Judge dismissing the writ petition as not maintainable. The appeal is devoid of merit and is accordingly

¶40

dismissed . No order as to costs.

¶41

Sd/- Sd/-

¶42

(Arvind Kumar Verma) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice

¶43

Chandra

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

Nagar Panchayat Pusour Vs Madhav Chouhan

Saurabh Singh Chauhan Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Bhola Yadav @ Dhanraj Yadav Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Yadvesh Yadav Vs Roshni Yadav

Amarsai Vs State Of Chhattisgarh

Eshwar Gond Vs State of Chhattisgarh