SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
BALRAM SINGH GOND – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF CHHATTISGARH – Respondent
WA/222/2026



2026:CGHC:12380-DB Digitally signed by NAFR ANURADHA ANURADHA TIWARI TIWARI Date: HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

2026.03.16

17:47:52 +0530 WA No. 222 of 2026 Balram Singh Gond S/o Late Ghurau Ram Aged About 55 Years R/o Ward No. 10, Purani Basti, Katghora, Tahsil- Katgora, District- Korba (C.G.)

... Appellant versus

1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department of Revenue And Disaster Management, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Naya Raipur, District- Raipur (C.G.)

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

3 - Sub-Divisional Officer-Cum-Land Acquisition Officer Katghora, District- Korba (C.G.)

4 - Branch Manager Punjab National Bank, Katghora, District- Korba (C.G.)

5 - Kaushal Tendulkar Sub-Divisional Officer, Revenue, Katghora, District- Korba (C.G.)

6 - Sonit Meriya The-Then Tahsildar, Katghora, Presently Posted In Collector Office, Korba, District- Korba (C.G.)

7 - Dashmat Bai Gond W/o Ful Singh Gond Aged About 68 Years D/o Ghurau, R/o Village- Baksara, Post Pantora, Tahsil Baloda, District-

Janjgir-Champa (C.G.)

8 - Basant Bai W/o Balam Singh Aged About 47 Years D/o Ghurau, R/o Village- Tiwarta, Tahsil- Deepka, District- Korba (C.G.)

9 - Indrapal Singh S/o Chandrabhan Singh Aged About 29 Years R/o Village- Jurali, Tahsil- Pondi Uproda, District- Korba (C.G.)

... Respondents (Cause-title taken from Case Information System)

Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal , Judge Judgment on Board Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice

16.03 .2026

1. Heard Mr. Jitendra Pali and Mr. S.R.J. Jaiswal, learned counsel for the appellant as well as Mr. Praveen Das, learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the State, Mr. Rishabh Dev Singh, learned counsel for respondent No.4 and Mr. Rajendra Tripathi, learned counsel for respondents No.7 to 9.

2. By way of this writ appeal, appellant has prayed for following relief(s):-

“i. To kindly allow the present Writ Appeal and set aside the impugned order dated 12.01.2026 passed in W.P.(C) No. 3602 of 2022;

ii. To kindly allow the writ petition by quashing the memo/order dated 26.05.2022 and all consequential actions taken pursuant thereto and kindly grant all reliefs as prayed in the writ petition.

iii. To kindly direct the respondents to release the entire compensation amount awarded vide award dated 15.07.2019 to the Appellant along with 18% interest.

iv. To kindly pass such further or other orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit, just, and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case, in the interest of justice.”

3. The present intra Court appeal has been filed against the order dated 12.01.2026 passed by the learned Single Judge in WPC No.3602/2022, whereby the writ petition filed by the writ petitioner has been disposed of.

4. The brief facts projected before the learned Single Judge were that the land of the appellant/writ petitioner bearing Khasra No. 52/2, admeasuring 0.146 hectare, P.H. No. 08, situated at Village Katghora, was acquired by the National Highways Authority of India for the purpose of widening of National Highway No. 111 under the Bharatmala Project. In pursuance thereof, the competent authority initiated Land Acquisition Case No. 31/A- 82/2018-19 and, vide award dated 15.07.2019, determined compensation amounting to ₹79,35,656/-, which was deposited by NHAI in the bank account of the appellant/writ petitioner.

5. Thereafter, vide memo dated 17.03.2020, the aforesaid amount was withheld. Subsequently, the Tahsildar submitted a report on 08.04.2022 stating that Dashoda Bai, Dashmat Bai, Basant Bai, Santoshi Bai and Indrapal Singh are also descendants of the father of the appellant/writ petitioner. Acting upon the said report, the competent authority directed the bank to apportion the compensation amount into six equal shares. Consequently, the shares of the aforesaid five persons were released and only one- sixth of the compensation amount was retained in the account of the appellant/writ petitioner.

6. Being aggrieved by t

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top