Monday, 18, May, 2026
 
 
 
Expand O P Jindal Global University
 
  
  
 
 
 

Marshal Kujur vs State Of Chhattisgarh
2025 Latest Caselaw 2270 Chatt

Citation : 2025 Latest Caselaw 2270 Chatt
Judgement Date : 5 March, 2025

Chattisgarh High Court

Marshal Kujur vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 5 March, 2025

                                                1



Digitally
signed by
SMT
NIRMALA
RAO




                                                              2025:CGHC:10840

                                                                          NAFR

                      HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

                                     WPC No. 2079 of 2019

            1 - Marshal Kujur S/o Francis Aged About 67 Years R/o Village
            Katajhariya, Tahsil Tamnar, District Raigarh Chhattisgarh., District :
            Raigarh,                                                Chhattisgarh

            2 - Agipat S/o Histfan Aged About 65 Years R/o Village Katajhariya,
            Tahsil Tamnar, District Raigarh Chhattisgarh., District : Raigarh,
            Chhattisgarh

            3 - Manohar S/o Lukes Aged About 55 Years R/o Village Katajhariya,
            Tahsil Tamnar, District Raigarh Chhattisgarh., District : Raigarh,
            Chhattisgarh.
                                                                 ... Petitioners

                                             versus

            1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary Department Of
            Revenue And Disaster Management Mantralaya Naya Raipur
            Chhattisgarh.,    District     :      Raipur,     Chhattisgarh

            2 - Collector Raigarh, District Raigarh Chhattisgarh., District : Raigarh,
            Chhattisgarh

            3 - The Land Acquisition Officer Cum Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue)
            Gharghoda, District Raigarh, Chhattisgarh., District : Raigarh,
            Chhattisgarh

            4 - National Thermal Power Corporation Regional Office At Magnato
            Offizo Conclave Iii And Iv Floor G E Road, Raipur, District Raipur
            Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh.
                                                            ---- Respondents

For Petitioners : Ms. Apurva Nigam, Advocate holding the brief of Shri Kamal Kishore Patel, Advocate.

For Respondents/ State : Shri Lav Sharma, P.L. For Respondent No.4 : Shri Anuroop Panda, Advocate.

Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 05.03.2025

1. The petitioners have filed this petition seeking the following

relief(s):-

"10.1 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct respondent-authorities for issuance of new notification on priority and further for payment of compensation to the petitioners on the basis of new notification.

10.2 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly direct the respondent-authorities for taking decision upon the representation of the petitioners and for recalculating the compensation on the basis of new notification and payment of the difference amount to the petitioner in light of new notification.

10.3 Any other relief/ order may also be granted that may be deemed fit and just in the facts and circumstances of the case."

2. Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the lands of

the petitioners were acquired by the State Government for the

National Thermal Power Corporation (NTPC). She would contend

that an award was passed in favour of the petitioners on 6.2.2016.

She would further argue that in WP(C) No.1649 of 2017, decided

on 30.10.2018, the Hon'ble Division Bench stayed the notification

dated 4.12.2014 issued by the State Government under Section

30(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land

Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (for short

'the Act, 2013') and also issued a direction to apply a multiplier of 2

while calculating the compensation. She would contend that a

notification was issued by the State Government in this regard on

2.5.2019. It is argued that the respondent authorities be directed to

calculate the amount of compensation afresh by applying the

multiplier of 2. She would further submit that a specific direction

was issued in WP(C) No.1649 of 2017 (Smt. Anita Agrawal vs.

State of Chhattisgarh and Ors.) and other connected matters in

this regard.

3. On the other hand, learned counsels for the respondents would

oppose the submissions made by counsel for the petitioners. They

would submit that the lands of the petitioners were acquired by the

State Government for NTPC. They would contend that an award

was passed on 6.2.2016 and compensation was also paid to the

petitioners, which they accepted without any demur. They would

contend that the subsequent orders or decisions of the Superior

Courts would not extend benefits in favour of the petitioners. They

would further submit that the observation made in paragraph 12 of

the order in WP(C) No.1649 of 2017 was later deleted.

4. Heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the

documents present on the record.

5. Admittedly, vide order dated 6.2.2016, compensation was paid to

the petitioners. This petition was filed by the petitioners on

18.6.2019, after the pronouncement of the judgment passed in

WP(C) No.1649 of 2017. In paragraph 12, the Hon'ble Division

Bench of this Court in the matter of Smt. Anita Agrawal (supra)

held as under:-

"12. It goes without saying that all awards and compensations in relation to not only these Petitioners but

all such persons whose lands have been acquired and a multiplier of 1.00 has been used for calculating the compensation, the same will be required to be revised and revisited in light to the new notification, which is required to be notified by the State Government, on priority."

6. The review petitions were filed before the Hon'ble Division Bench

by the State of Chhattisgarh. In paragraph 6, the Hon'ble Division

Bench passed an order to delete paragraph 12 of the order passed

in WP(C) No.1649 of 2017. Paragraph 6 of the order reads as

follows:-

"6. When the matter came up for consideration before this Court on an earlier occasion, it was doubted whether the declaration/ direction given as per paragraph 12 was ever prayed for in any of the writ petitions. Today, during the course of hearing, it is conceded by the learned counsel appearing for the parties that, it was never a prayer in the writ petition, but for individual grievances of the writ Petitioners in respect of which, relief has been granted based on the reasoning given in the judgment as disclosed from paragraph 1 to 11."

7. Taking into consideration the fact that the petitioners accepted the

amount of compensation, and the claim of the petitioners in the

present petition is based on paragraph 12 of the order passed in

WP(C) No.1649 of 2017, which has already been deleted by the

Hon'ble Division Bench in Review Petition No.190 of 2019 and

other connected matters, no case is made out for interference.

8. Accordingly, this petition fails and is hereby dismissed. No cost(s).

Sd/-

(Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge Nimmi

 
Download the LatestLaws.com Mobile App
 
 
Latestlaws Newsletter
 

Publish Your Article

 

Campus Ambassador

 

Media Partner

 

Campus Buzz

 

LatestLaws Guest Court Correspondent

LatestLaws Guest Court Correspondent Apply Now!
 

LatestLaws.com presents: Lexidem Offline Internship Program, 2026

 

LatestLaws.com presents 'Lexidem Online Internship, 2026', Apply Now!

 
 

LatestLaws Partner Event : Smt. Nirmala Devi Bam Memorial International Moot Court Competition

 

LatestLaws Partner Event : IJJ

 
 
Latestlaws Newsletter