[Cites 10, Cited by 0]
Chattisgarh High Court
Janiram Kenwat vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 24 March, 2026
1
2026:CGHC:14026
Digitally
RAGHVENDRA signed by
JAT RAGHVENDRA
JAT
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
WPC No. 843 of 2021
1 - Janiram Kenwat S/o Dukhiram Kewat, Aged About 52 Years R/o
Mahuda, Uchbhatti Thasil Champa, District Janjgir Champa
Chhattisgarh., District : Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh.
2 - Satya Narayan Sonant, S/o Tij Ram Sonant, Aged About 44 Years
R/o Mahuda, Uchbhatti Thasil Champa, District Janjgir Champa
(Chhattisgarh)., District : Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh.
3 - Bodhin Bai Yadav, W/o Badri Prasad Yadav, Aged About 75 Years
R/o Mahuda, Uchbhatti Thasil Champa, District Janjgir Champa
Chhattisgarh., District : Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh.
4 - Shraddha Lal, S/o Sukhlal, Aged About 54 Years R/o Faraswani,
Saraipali District Korba (Chhattisgarh), District : Korba, Chhattisgarh.
5 - Panch Ram Bhargav, S/o Jethuram Bhargav, Aged About 57 Years
R/o Bhilai 1, District Durg (Chhattisgarh), District : Durg, Chhattisgarh.
6 - Raj Kumar Soni, S/o Pila Babu Soni, Aged About 65 Years R/o
Farswani, District Korba (Chhattisgarh), District : Korba, Chhattisgarh.
2
7 - Narayan Sonant, S/o Gambhir Sonant, Aged About 65 Years R/o
Mahuda, Uchbhatti Thasil Champa, District Janjgir Champa
Chhattisgarh., District : Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh.
8 - Salikram Sonant, S/o Chaitram Sonant, Aged About 37 Years R/o
Mahuda, Uchbhatti Thasil Champa, District Janjgir Cahmpa
Chhattisgarh., District : Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh.
9 - Battu Lal Yadav, S/o Shiv Charan Yadav, Aged About 60 Years R/o
Dipika Colony, Gevra, District Korba (Chhattisgarh), District : Korba,
Chhattisgarh.
... Petitioner(s)
versus
1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary Department Of Revenue
And Disaster Management Mahanadi Bhavan, Mantralaya, Naya Raipur
(Chhattisgarh), District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh.
2 - Competent Authority (Land-Acquisition) And Sub Divisional Officer
(Revenue), Korba, District Korba (Chhattisgarh), District : Korba,
Chhattisgarh.
3 - Collecor, District Korba (Chhattisgarh), District : Korba, Chhattisgarh.
4 - National Highway Authority Of India, Through Project Director,
Project Implementation Unit Korba District Korba (Chhattisgarh), District
: Korba, Chhattisgarh.
5 - Union Of India, Through Secretary, Ministry Of Road Transport And
Highways, Transport Bhawan, 1, Parliament Street, New Delhi 110001,
District : New Delhi, Delhi
... Respondent(s)
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Munendra Kumar Sharma,
Advocate on behalf of Mr. Basant
Kaiwartya, Advocate.
For Respondent(s)/State : Mr. D.R. Minj, Dy. A.G.
For Respondent No. 4 : Mr. A.A. Laxmidhar, Advocate on behalf
of Mr. Ali Asgar, Advocate.
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad
Order on Board
24/03/2026
1. By way of this petition, the petitioner has prayed for following
reliefs:-
"10.1 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to
issue an appropriate writ commanding the respondents to
revise the amount of 15 compensation, which computed
in Award passed by the respondent No.2 in land
acquisition case No.15/A-82 Year 2018-19 of Gram
Saraipali.
10.2 That, this Hon'ble Court may further kindly be
pleased to issue an appropriate writ commanding the
respondents to use multiple factor 2 (Two) by which the
market value is to be multiplied for determination of
Compensation as it has been done in similar cases, by
applying the suitable notification applicable in this regard.
10.3 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to
modify/set aside the impugned Award dated 11/01/2019
issued by the Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue), Korba,
District- Korba(C.G.), which is unjust, unfair and bad in
law.
10.4 That this Hon'ble court may kindly pleased to
command the respondents to pay interest on revised
compensation @ 12% as provided in section 69 (2) of the
Act, 2013.
10.5 Any other relief/reliefs, which this Hon'ble Court may
think fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the
case with the cost of the petition."
2. Brief facts of the case, is that, the agricultural land situated at
Village Saraipali, Tehsil Kartala, District Korba (Chhattisgarh) was
acquired for the purpose of widening National Highway No. 149-B
under Land Acquisition Case No. 15/A-82 for the year 2018-2019,
and the petitioners are either owners, co-owners, or legal
successors (in cases where the original owners have expired) of
the said acquired land. The petitioners came to know about the
proposed acquisition through a public notice published on
05/09/2018 in the daily newspapers "Dainik Bhaskar" (regional
language) and "Central Chronicle" (English), and subsequently, an
award was passed on 11/01/2019, wherein the compensation was
to be disbursed from the office of Respondent No. 2. However, the
amount of compensation awarded was found to be inadequate
and only partial in nature, prompting the petitioners to seek a
certified copy of the award dated 11/01/2019, which was
eventually obtained on 17/12/2020. Upon perusal of the award
and the award-sheet annexed thereto, it was revealed that two
different parameters had been applied for determining the market
value of the acquired land, namely: (i) square meters, where the
acquired land measured up to 506 square meters, and (ii)
hectares, where the acquired land exceeded 506 square meters.
It was further observed that no multiplying factor, as mandated
under Column No. 3 at Serial No. 2 of the First Schedule read with
Section 32(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and
Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and
Resettlement Act, 2013 (for brevity, "the Act of 2013"), had been
applied while determining the compensation. Consequently, lands
of larger extents were awarded lesser compensation in
comparison to smaller plots, despite being identical in all respects,
which clearly amounts to discrimination and violates the
constitutional mandate of equality. Aggrieved by such arbitrary,
irrational, and unreasonable determination of compensation,
which is wholly unsustainable in law and contrary to the spirit of
the Constitution of India, the petitioners submitted objections
before the respondents vide letter dated 19/10/2020; however, no
action was taken thereon. It is pertinent to mention that the award-
sheet itself does not contain any provision or column for applying
the multiplying factor to the market value as required under the
First Schedule of the Act of 2013, possibly indicating that a
multiplying factor of one was erroneously applied. In their detailed
representation dated 19/10/2020, the petitioners highlighted these
anomalies and sought revision of compensation. It was also
brought to the notice of the respondents that the notification dated
04/12/2014 issued by the State of Chhattisgarh, which prescribed
a multiplying factor of one, had already been struck down by this
Hon'ble High Court vide order dated 30/10/2018 passed in WPC
No. 1649 of 2017 (Smt. Anita Agrawal vs. State of Chhattisgarh
and Others), and that the only prevailing legal framework
governing the determination of the multiplying factor is the
"Chhattisgarh Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in
Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement (Determination
of Multiplying Factor in case of Rural Areas) Act, 2019," notified on
02/05/2019, wherein Section 3 clearly provides that, in rural areas,
the market value shall be multiplied by a factor of two.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the present petition
has been filed seeking enhancement of the award dated
11.01.2019 passed by the Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue),
Korba, on the ground that the said award is unjust, arbitrary and
unsustainable in law. It is further contended that the determination
of compensation therein has not been carried out in accordance
with the applicable statutory provisions and settled principles,
thereby rendering the award legally flawed and liable to be
reconsidered and suitably enhanced by this Hon'ble Court.
4. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respondents
submits that the present petition is not maintainable in view of the
availability of an efficacious alternative remedy under Section
3G(5) of the National Highways Act, 1956, which provides that any
person aggrieved by the determination of compensation may
approach the designated Arbitrator for seeking appropriate relief,
including enhancement of the award; and, therefore, it is
contended that the petitioner ought to avail the said statutory
remedy instead of invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction of this
Hon'ble Court.
5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the
material available on record.
6. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Leelavathi N. and
others vs. State of Karnataka and others, 2025 SCC Online
SC 2253, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed as under:-
"35. Recently, a three-Judge Bench of this Court in PHR
Invent Educational Society v. UCO Bank, (2024) 6 SCC
579, has held as under:
37. It could thus clearly be seen that the Court
has carved out certain exceptions when a
petition under Article 226 of the Constitution
could be entertained in spite of availability of an
alternative remedy. Some of them are thus:
(i) where the statutory authority
has not acted in accordance with
the provisions of the enactment
in question;
(ii) it has acted in defiance of the
fundamental principles of judicial
procedure;
(iii) it has resorted to invoke the
provisions which are repealed;
and
(iv) when an order has been
passed in total violation of the
principles of natural justice.
38. It has however been clarified that the High
Court will not entertain a petition under Article
226 of the Constitution if an effective alternative
remedy is available to the aggrieved person or
the statute under which the action complained
of has been taken itself contains a mechanism
for redressal of grievance."
7. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, and further
taking into account the availability of an efficacious alternative
statutory remedy under the relevant provisions of law, this Court is
of the considered view that the present petition is not liable to be
entertained in exercise of its writ jurisdiction. Accordingly, the
petitioner is directed to avail the alternative remedy available
under the law in accordance with due process.
8. With this observation and direction, the writ petition is disposed of.
Sd/-
(Amitendra Kishore Prasad)
Judge
Raghu Jat
