Saheb Lal Sahu vs State Of Chhattisgarh
2026 Latest Caselaw 1994 Chatt

Chattisgarh High Court

Saheb Lal Sahu vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 22 April, 2026

                                                  1




                                                                   2026:CGHC:18340
                                                                                 NAFR

                      HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR


                                     WPC No. 1887 of 2026

            1 - Saheb Lal Sahu S/o Late Shri Jogi Ram Sahu Aged About 62 Years
            R/o Village Sukalipali, Post Suloni, Police Station Malkharoda, Tahsil
Digitally
signed
by          Adbhar, District Sakti Chhattisgarh
SHAYNA
KADRI
                                                                        ... Petitioner(s)


                                              versus


            1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Public Works
            Department, Government Of Chhattisgarh, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal
            Nagar, Naya Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh
            2 - Collector Sakti District Sakti Chhattisgarh
            3 - Sub Division Officer (Revenue) Malkharoda, District Sakti
            Chhattisgarh
            4 - Executive Engineer Public Works Department, Champa Division,
            Champa, District Janjgir Champa Chhattisgarh
            5 - Sub Division Officer Public Works Department Sakti, District Sakti
            Chhattisgarh
            6 - Tahsildar Tahsil Adabhar, District Sakti Chhattisgarh
                                                                    ... Respondent(s)

(Cause Title is taken from CIS System)

For Petitioner : Mr. Ramesh Nayak, Advocate

For State : Mr. Anand Dadariya, Addl. Advocate General

Hon'ble Mr. Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad

Order on Board

22/04/2026

1. The petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking following reliefs :

"10.1. That, the Hon'ble High Court may kindly be pleased to call for the entire records pertaining to the case of the petitioner for its kind perusal.

10.2. That, the Hon'ble High Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent authorities to provide the compensation to the petitioners under the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act 2013.

10.3 That, the Hon'ble High Court may kindly be pleased to stay the construction of road over the petitioners land without providing them compensation under the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act 2013.

10.4 That, any other relief, this Hon'ble Court deem fit and proper may also be granted to the petitioner, in the interest of justice."

2. Facts of the case, as projected in the petition, are that the

petitioner is a farmer and recorded owner of land bearing Khasra

No. 113/1 situated at revenue village Sukalipali, where he has

also constructed his residential house and is residing therein. An

existing road, namely the Sakarra-Bhothiya road, connects

several villages including Sonadula, Katari, Sukalipali, Suloni,

Dongiya and Chikhalrauda. In view of increasing traffic and upon

demand of local residents, the State authorities undertook the

work of widening the said road. During the course of such

widening, a portion of the petitioner's land was utilized by the

authorities. However, no acquisition proceedings were initiated in

accordance with law. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner, along

with other affected villagers, submitted representations dated

21.11.2016 before the Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue), Sakti,

and thereafter on 22.11.2016 before the Collector, Janjgir-

Champa, seeking grant of compensation for the land so utilized.

Despite repeated representations and personal approaches to the

concerned authorities, no compensation has been paid.

Meanwhile, the respondent authorities proceeded with and

commenced construction activities over the petitioner's land

without following due process under the Right to Fair

Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition,

Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the action of the

respondent authorities in utilizing the petitioner's land without

acquisition and without payment of compensation is arbitrary,

illegal and in gross violation of the petitioner's constitutional and

statutory rights. It is contended that the petitioner is legally entitled

to fair compensation under the provisions of the Right to Fair

Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition,

Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013. It is further submitted

that the work of widening of the road has already been started;

however, even after commencement of the work, the petitioner

has not been granted a single penny towards compensation. The

authorities have thus acted in a high-handed manner by forcibly

entering upon and using the petitioner's land without adhering to

the due procedure established by law.

4. Learned State counsel opposes the submissions made on behalf

of the petitioner and submits that the construction of the road has

been undertaken for public purpose in accordance with

administrative approval. It is contended that the claim of the

petitioner regarding non-payment of compensation is a disputed

question of fact, and the petitioner has an efficacious alternative

remedy to approach the competent authority for redressal of his

grievance. It is further submitted that appropriate action, if found

due, shall be taken by the authorities in accordance with law.

5. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and upon perusal of

the material available on record, it appears that the grievance of

the petitioner pertains to alleged utilization of his land for the

purpose of widening of the Sakarra-Bhothiya road without

following due process of acquisition and without payment of

compensation. At the same time, the State has disputed the claim

and has contended that the issue involves disputed questions of

fact, particularly with regard to the extent of land, if any, belonging

to the petitioner that has been utilized for the said purpose.

6. In such circumstances, this Court is of the considered opinion that

proper adjudication of the controversy would require factual

determination on the basis of demarcation of the land in question.

Accordingly, the concerned authorities are at liberty to undertake

demarcation of the land in order to ascertain whether the land of

the petitioner falls within the area utilized for widening of the road.

The petitioner is directed to appear before the concerned authority

on a date to be fixed by it. The concerned authority shall issue

due notice to the petitioner and ensure his participation at the time

of conducting demarcation proceedings. After such demarcation,

in the event it is found that the land of the petitioner has been

utilized by the authorities for the purpose of road widening, the

concerned authorities are directed to initiate appropriate

proceedings strictly in accordance with law for acquisition and

payment of compensation.

7. With the aforesaid observations and directions, the writ petition

stands disposed of.

No orders as to cost.

Sd/-

                                                (Amitendra Kishore Prasad)
Shayna                                                    Judge