Chattisgarh High Court

Babulal vs Union Of India on 9 July, 2025

                                  1




                                                          NAFR




        HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

                       WPC No. 681 of 2021
1 - Babulal S/o Late Rameshwar Dewangan Aged About 70 Years
Resident Of Village Seoni Tehsil Champa, District Janjgir Champa
(Chhattisgarh), District : Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh

2 - Laxmi Prasad @ Rudra Prasad Pandey S/o Late Manharan
Aged About 70 Years Resident Of Village Seoni Tehsil Champa,
District Janjgir Champa (Chhattisgarh), District : Janjgir-Champa,
Chhattisgarh

3 - Dhaniram S/o Late Shyamlal Aged About 42 Years Resident Of
Village Seoni Tehsil Champa, District Janjgir Champa
(Chhattisgarh), District : Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh

4 - Puniram S/o Late Salfaru Aged About 68 Years Resident Of
Village Seoni Tehsil Champa, District Janjgir Champa
(Chhattisgarh), District : Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh

5 - Budhram S/o Late Sarhu Aged About 77 Years Resident Of
Village Seoni Tehsil Champa, District Janjgir Champa
(Chhattisgarh), District : Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh
                                                    ... Petitioner(s)

                               versus

1 - Union Of India Through Secretary, Ministry Of Road Transport
And Highways Transport Bhawan, 1, New Delhi, District : New
Delhi, Delhi

2 - Project Director National Highway Authority Of India (Nhai)
Project Implementation Unit D-61, Hig-1, Abhilasha Parisar Behind
New Bus Stand Tifra Bilaspur (Chhattisgarh), District : Bilaspur,
Chhattisgarh

3 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary Department Of
Revenue Mahanadi Bhawan, Raipur District Raipur (Chhattisgarh),
District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh

4 - Collector Champa District - Janjgir-Champa (Chhattisgarh),
District : Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh
                                   -2-




5 - Sub-Divisional Officer Cum Competent Authority Land
Acquisition Champa, District Janjgir Champa (Chhattisgargh),
District : Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh

6 - Inspector General Registration And Superintendent Of Stamp
Gst Bhawan, Raipur, District Raipur (Chhattisgarh), District : Raipur,
Chhattisgarh
                                                ---- Respondents

For Petitioners : Ms. Apurva Nigam, Advocate holding the brief of Mr. K.K.Patel, Advocate For State : Mr. Shubham Bajpayee, PL For Respondent No.1/: Mr. Tushar Dhar Diwan, Central Government Union of India Counsel For Respondent No.2 : Mr. Dhiraj Wankhede, Advocate

Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 09.07.2025

1. The petitioners have filed this petition seeking the following

relief(s):-

"10.1 That this Hon'ble court kindly be pleased to pass similar order in terms of WA

10.2 Any other relief, which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper, may also be passed in favour of the petitioner."

2. Ms. Nigam, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners

would submit that petitioner No.1 is the owner of the land

bearing Survey Nos. 68/1, 69/3, petitioner No.2 is the owner

of the land bearing Survey No.1364/3, petitioner No.3 is the

owner of the land bearing Survey No.1552/1, petitioner No.4

is the owner of land bearing Survey No.1567, 1572/5 and

petitioner No.5 is the owner of land bearing Survey No.1338/2

situated at Village Seoni, Patwari Circle No.2, Tehsil-Champa,

District Janjgir-Champa (C.G.). She would further submit that

the lands of the petitioners were acquired for the construction

of National Highway No. 149B and an award was passed on

15.09.2018. She would also submit that proper compensation

has not been paid to the petitioners by the respondents. She

would contend that the higher extent of land has been

compensated with lower compensation as compared to the

smaller extent of land. She would further contend that the

issue has already been settled in Writ Appeal No.7/2019 vide

order dated 06.12.2019 and orders passed in WPC No.2207

of 2020 and Writ Appeal No.423 of 2020. Ms. Nigam would

also contend that the alternative remedy is not a bar where

there is an error apparent on the face on record, the principles

of natural justice have not been complied with and the

authority which decided the matter was not competent. She

would further argue that the compensation was not assessed

by the Land Acquisition Officer strictly in accordance with the

existing market value and the applicable rules, therefore, the

present petition is maintainable. She has placed reliance on

the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Division Bench in the

matter of Ashutosh Agrawal and another Vs. Union of

India and others and other connected matters, Writ

Appeal No.7/2019.

3. On the other hand, Mr. Wankhede, learned counsel appearing

for respondent No.2/National Highways Authority would

oppose the submissions made by Ms. Nigam. He would

submit that admittedly the petitioners have filed this petition

for enhancement of compensation and they have a remedy to

prefer an application under the provisions of Section 3G(5) of

the National Highways Act, 1956 (for short 'the Act of 1956').

In support of his submissions, he placed reliance on the

judgment passed by the Hon'ble Division Bench in the matter

of Balmukund Dewangan and others Vs. State of

Chhattisgarh and others and other connected matters,

Writ Appeal No.140 of 2022, wherein the judgment passed in

the matter of Ashutosh Agrawal and another (supra) was

also considered. The Hon'ble Division Bench in para 7

affirmed the order passed by the writ Court whereby, liberty

was granted to the land oustees of that case to approach the

Arbitrator according to the provisions of Section 3G(5) of the

Act of 1956. He would also submit that similar submissions as

made by Ms. Nigam were made in the matter of Balmukund

Dewangan (supra) in para 7.

4. Mr. Bajpayee, learned Panel Lawyer appearing for the State

as well as Mr. Diwan, learned counsel appearing for Union of

India would support the contentions made by Mr. Wankhede.

5. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and

perused the documents placed on the record.

6. It is not in dispute that there is an efficacious statutory remedy

available to the petitioners to approach the Arbitrator

according to the provisions of Section 3G(5) of the Act of

1956.

7. The Hon'ble Division Bench in the matter of Balmukund

Dewangan (supra) after considering the judgment passed in

the matter of Ashutosh Agrawal (supra), affirmed the order

passed by the Writ Court and also affirmed the liberty granted

to the land oustees to approach the Arbitrator appointed by

the Central Government within a period of 30 days from the

date of receipt of the copy. Concluding para 11 is reproduced

herein below:-

"11.Considering the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties, perusing the impugned orders and other documents and findings recorded by learned Single Judge while disposing of the matters, we are of the considered opinion that learned Single Judge has not committed any illegality, irregularity or jurisdictional error warranting interference by this Court. Even otherwise, learned Single Judge has observed that subject to the petitioners approaching the Arbitrator appointed by the Central Govt. in this regard within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order, the Arbitrator notified shall proceed and decide the matter objectively after due consideration of the claim of petitioners and the grounds raised by them seeking for quashment of the award to the extent of the compensation quantified and the multiplier factor taken into consideration for computation of compensation. As such, the judgment relied upon by the learned counsel for the appellants i.e.

Ashutosh Agrawal (supra) is distinguishable to the facts of the present case."

8. Taking into consideration the fact that there is an efficacious

alternative remedy available in favour of the petitioners to

approach the Arbitrator under the provisions of Section 3G(5)

of the Act of 1956, in my opinion, this petition is not

maintainable and is accordingly dismissed. However, the

petitioners would be at liberty to approach the Arbitrator within

a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this

order and in turn, the Arbitrator notified shall proceed and

decide the matter objectively after due consideration of the

claim of the petitioners and the grounds raised by them.

9. Consequently, the present petition is hereby dismissed. No

cost(s).