2025:CGHC:59192 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 6358 of 2025 Praveen Kumar Nahata S/o Late Hem Kumar Nahata Aged About 45 Years Resident Of Villa 17, Maruti Solitaire, Khamardih, Raipur, Tehsil And District Raipur (C.G.)

... Petitioner(s)

versus

1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Revenue Department, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Capital Complex, Naya Raipur, District Raipur (Chhattisgarh)

2 - The Collector Raipur, District Raipur (Chhattisgarh)

3 - Sub-Divisional Officer Revenue-Cum-Land Acquisition Officer, Arang/abhanpur, Headquarter Raipur (Chhattisgarh)

4 - Nawa Raipur Atal Nagar Vikas Pradhikaran (Nranvp) Earlier Known As Naya Raipur Development Authority (Nrda), Through The Chief Executive Officer, Nawa Raipur Atal Nagar Vikas Pradhikaran, Paryawas Bhawan, North Block, Sector-19, Nawa Raipur Atal Nagar, Raipur, District Raipur (Chhattisgarh)

... Respondent(s)

Digitally signed by PRAVEEN KUMAR SINHA Date:

2025.12.12 +0530 For Petitioner :Mr. Ankur Agrawal, Advocate with Ms. Rashmi Vipani, Advocate For Respondents No. 1 to 3/State :Mr. Saumitra Kesharwani, Panel Lawyer For Respondent No.4 :Mr. Sanjay Pathak, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Rajat Agrawal, Advocate SB: Hon'ble Shri Parth Prateem Sahu, Judge

Order on Board

05/12/2025

1. Petitioner has filed this writ petition challenging the award dated

31.12.2015, Annexure P-1, passed by respondent No.3 thereby ordering for acquisition of petitioner’s land situated in village Nawagaon, PH No.75/10, Tehsil -Arang, District- Raipur.

2. Facts of case, in brief, are that respondent No.3 Sub-Divisional Officer-

cum- Land Acquisition Officer, Aarang / Abhanpur issued notification under Section 4 (1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (henceforth ‘the Act of 1894’), which was published in daily newspaper on 23.3.2013. Thereafter, notification under Section 6 of the Act of 1894 was published. During pendency of land acquisition proceeding, new act namely “The Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (for short ‘the Act of 2013’) came into force w.e.f. 1.1.2014. After following procedure as prescribed under the Act of 2013, award under Section 23 of the Act of 2013 came to be passed on 31.12.2015, Annexure P-1, by respondent No.3 computing compensation to be paid against acquisition of land of petitioner along with others under the land acquisition proceeding.

3. Petitioner has filed this writ petition primarily on the ground that after notification and coming force of the Act of 2013 on 1.1.2014, even if the land acquisition proceeding initiated under the old Act i.e. the Act of 1894, continued, it has to be completed within period of 12 months from the date of publication of declaration under Section 19 of the Act of 2013. Award was not passed within twelve months, hence proceeding lapsed after twelve months. The award passed is therefore no award. It is also contention of learned counsel for petitioner that the Collector has not conducted inquiry as contemplated under Section 23 of the Act of 2013. Had the inquiry was conducted by the Collector, petitioner could have an opportunity to raise objection in accordance with law. It is also contention of learned counsel for petitioner that compensation as computed by Land Acquisition Officer is not in accordance with provisions of the Act of 2013, which provides for determination of market value of land by the Collector as envisaged under Section 26 of the Act of 2013. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that for the purpose of this writ petition, he is pressing upon the ground that due to non-passing of the award within prescribed period of 12 months, the entire land acquisition proceeding initiated has lapsed and therefore passing award in lapsed proceedings is illegal. In support of his contention, he places reliance upon decision rendered in case of State of West Bengal vs. Anup Kumar Mondal & anr, reported in 2022 SCC Online Cal 4149; Executive Engineer, G