Chhattisgarh High Court
WPC/4253/2021 of DILIP SINGH KUSHWAHA Vs STATE OF CHHATTISGARH, on 23 September 2026
2026:CGHC:41542 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 4253 of 2021 1 - Dilip Singh Kushwaha S/o Daulat Singh Kushwaha, Aged About 54 Years R/o Shanti Nagar Ward, Jagdalpur, District - Bastar Chhattisgarh., District : Bastar(Jagdalpur), Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus
CGHC010278032021
2026:CGHC:41542
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
WPC No. 4253 of 2021
1 - Dilip Singh Kushwaha S/o Daulat Singh Kushwaha, Aged About 54
Years R/o Shanti Nagar Ward, Jagdalpur, District - Bastar Chhattisgarh., District : Bastar(Jagdalpur), Chhattisgarh
... Petitioner(s)
versus
1 - State Of Chhattisgarh, Through Secretary, Department Of Revenue Mahanadi Bhavan, Mantralaya, Atal Nagar, Naya Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh, District :
Raipur,
Chhattisgarh
Collector, Jagdalpur, District Bastar Chhattisgarh 3 - Sub Divisional Officer (R), Jagdalpur, District - Bastar Chhattisgarh.
4 - Director, National Mineral Development Corporation (Iron And Steel Plant), Post Nagarnar, District - Bastar Chhattisgarh., District :
Bastar(Jagdalpur), Chhattisgarh
... Respondents
(Cause-title taken from the Case Information System)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- For Petitioners :- Mr. Harshwardhan Parganiha, Advocate For State :- Mr. Shobhit Mishra, Dy. G.A.
For Respondent No. 4 :-
Ms. Ankita Gourha, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Topilal Bareth, Advocate
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- VISHAKHA
BEOHAR
Digitally
signed by
VISHAKHA
BEOHAR
SB- Hon'ble Shri Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Order On Board 24.09.2026
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
1. Following reliefs have been prayed in this petition:- “10.1 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to call the entire records relating to this case. 10.2 That, this Hon'ble court may kindly be pleased to allow the petition and set-aside the award dated 09.03.2021 passed by Sub Divisional Officer (R) Jadgalpur, District Bastar (C.G.), in the interest of justice. 10.3 That any other relief, which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper together with cost of the petition.”
2. Learned State counsel, at the outset, raises an objection as to the maintainability of the present petition. It is submitted that the petitioner has admittedly received the compensation awarded pursuant to the award dated 09.03.2021 passed by the Sub- Divisional Officer (Revenue), Jagdalpur. Referring to the pleadings and the relief sought in the petition, learned State counsel submits that the petitioner is, in substance, aggrieved by the quantum of compensation determined under the said award. It is, therefore, contended that the appropriate remedy available to the petitioner is to seek a reference under Section 64 of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition,
Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, and that a writ petition challenging the quantum of compensation is not maintainable.
3. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the challenge raised in the present petition is not confined merely to the quantum of compensation. According to learned counsel, the petitioner has also questioned the authority and jurisdiction of the concerned authority to pass the impugned award as well as the very nature and legality of the award passed in favour of the petitioner. It is further submitted that mere acceptance or receipt of the compensation amount would not preclude the petitioner from questioning the legality and validity of the award on grounds other than the quantum of compensation. It is, therefore, contended that the present writ petition is maintainable.
4. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and have perused the material available on record as well as the provisions contained in Section 64 of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013.
5. Having considered the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties, this Court is of the view that, having regard to the nature of the principal relief sought by the petitioner, namely, enhancement of the compensation awarded and proper determination of the amount of compensation, the appropriate remedy available to the petitioner is to approach the competent authority by seeking a reference under Section 64 of the Act of 2013.
6. Accordingly, without entering into the merits of the case, the present petition is disposed of by granting liberty to the petitioner to approach the competent authority and file an appropriate application under Section 64 of the Act of 2013, in accordance with law.
7. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case. In the event the petitioner approaches the competent authority by filing an appropriate application/reference under Section 64 of the Act of 2013, the same shall be considered and decided by the competent authority, in accordance with law, by passing an appropriate and reasoned order.
sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad)
Judge Vishakha