Chattisgarh High Court
Harish Gandhi vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 24 July, 2025
Author: Narendra Kumar Vyas
Bench: Narendra Kumar Vyas
Page 1 of 5
2025:CGHC:35767
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
WPC No. 1050 of 2015
1 - Siyaram Agrawal S/o Late Hanuman Prasad Agarwal Aged About
80 Years R/o Ramsgar Para Raipur Chhattisgarh , Chhattisgarh
--- Petitioner(s)
versus
1 - State Of Chhattisgarh And Ors. S/o Through The Secretary
Mantralaya Mahanadi Bahwan, Naya Raipur Chhattisgarh ,
Chhattisgarh
2 - The Collector Land Acquisition Raipur Chhattisgarh , District :
Raipur, Chhattisgarh
3 - The Sub Divisional Officer Cum Land Acquisition Officer Aarang,
District Raipur Chhattisgarh , District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh
4 - The New Raipur Development Authority Naya Raipur Through Its
Chief Executive Officer Raipur Chhattisgarh, District : Raipur,
Chhattisgarh
--- Respondent(s)
WPC No. 1382 of 2015
1 – Harish Gandhi S/o Late Shobhalalji Gandhi Aged About 39 Years
Resident Of Flat No. 62, Krishna Vatika, Vrindavan Appartment, Indra
Nagar, Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh, Chhattisgarh
—Petitioner(s)
Versus
1 – State Of Chhattisgarh S/o Through The Secretary, Mantralaya
Mahanadi Bhawan, Naya Raipur Chhattisgarh, Chhattisgarh
2 – The Collector, Land Acquisition, Raipur Chhattisgarh, District :
Page 2 of 5
Raipur, Chhattisgarh
3 – The Sub Divisional Officer Cum Land Acquisition Officer, Aarang,
District Raipur Chhattisgarh, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh
4 – The New Raipur Development Authority, Naya Raipur Through Its
Chief Executive Officer, Raipur Chhattisgarh, District : Raipur,
Chhattisgarh
—- Respondents
For Petitioners : Mr. Aniruddha Shrivastava on behalf of Mr.
Ankur Agrawal, Advocates.
For State : Mr. K.L. Sahu, Dy. Govt. Advocate
For NRDA : Mr. Keshav Dewangan and Mr. Anuroop
Panda, Advocates
Hon’ble Shri Justice Narendra Kumar Vyas
Order on Board
24.07.2025
1. Since, common question of law and facts are involved in both the
writ petitions, they are heard and being disposed off by this
common order.
2. The petitioners have filed present petitions under Article 226 of
the Constitution of India challenging award passed by the Sub-
Divisional Officer and Land Acquisition Officer, Arang in land
acquisition case No. 6-A/82 year 2011-12.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the
quantum of compensation awarded by the Land Acquisition
Officer is not satisfactory. He would further submit that the said
compensation has been determined in view of Section 4(1) of
the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 which has been vitiated in view of
Page 3 of 5
the Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and
Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and
Resettlement Act, 2013, therefore, the petitioners are entitled for
higher compensation.
4. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents would submit
that the award has already been passed and the compensation
has already been deposited therefore, any rider contained in
Section 24(2) of the Act, 2013 will not come in rescue of the
petitioners, therefore, would pray for dismissal of the writ
petitions.
5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the
record.
6. To determine the issue raised in the present writ petitions, it is
expedient for this Court to extract relevant provisions of the Act,
2013 which is extracted below :-
24. Land Acquisition process under Act 1 of 1894 shall be
deemed to have lapsed in certain cases –
(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, in any case of
land acquisition proceedings initiated under the Land Acquisition
Act, 1894,–
(a) where no award under section 11 of the said Land
Acquisition Act has been made, then, all provisions of
this Act relating to the determination of compensation
shall apply; or
(b) where an award under said section 11 has been
made, then such proceedings shall continue under
the provisions of the said Land Acquisition Act, as if
the said Act has not been repealed.
(2) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1), in
case of land acquisition proceedings initiated under the Land
Acquisition Act, 1894 (1 of 1894), where an award under the said
section 11 has been made five years or more prior to the
Page 4 of 5commencement of this Act but the physical possession of the
land has not been taken or the compensation has not been paid
the said proceedings shall be deemed to have lapsed and the
appropriate Government, if it so chooses, shall initiate the
proceedings of such land acquisition afresh in accordance with
the provisions of this Act:-
Provided that where an award has been made and
compensation in respect of a majority of land holdings
has not been deposited in the account of the
beneficiaries, then, all beneficiaries specified in the
notification for acquisition under section 4 of the said
Land Acquisition Act, shall be entitled to
compensation in accordance with the provisions of
this Act.” *** ***
7. From perusal of the record it is quite vivid that the compensation
has been deposited as well as the possession of the land has
also been taken vide possession certificate dated 24.12.2013
issued by the Tahsildar. It is settled position of law that either
possession or compensation has been paid then there would be
no lapse. The issue with regard to lapsing of the Act of 1894 has
been dealt with in detail by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case
of Indore Development Authority vs. Manoharlal and Others
{(2020) 8 SCC 129} and Hon’ble Supreme Court has held as
under :-
366.7 The mode of taking possession under the Act of 1894
and as contemplated under Section 24(2) is by drawing of
inquest report/ memorandum. Once award has been passed
on taking possession under Section 16 of the Act of 1894, the
land vests in State there is no divesting provided under
Section 24(2) of the Act of 2013, as once possession has
been taken there is no lapse under Section 24(2).
366.8 The provisions of Section 24(2) providing for a deemed
lapse of proceedings are applicable in case authorities have
failed due to their inaction to take possession and pay
compensation for five years or more before the Act of 2013
came into force, in a proceeding for land acquisition pending
with concerned authority as on 1.1.2014. The period of
subsistence of interim orders passed by court has to be
excluded in the computation of five years.
Page 5 of 5
366.9 Section 24(2) of the Act of 2013 does not give rise to
new cause of action to question the legality of concluded
proceedings of land acquisition. Section 24 applies to a
proceeding pending on the date of enforcement of the Act of
2013, i.e., 1.1.2014. It does not revive stale and time-barred
claims and does not reopen concluded proceedings nor allow
landowners to question the legality of mode of taking
possession to reopen proceedings or mode of deposit of
compensation in the treasury instead of court to invalidate
acquisition.
8. Considering the facts of the case and law on the subject, it is
quite vivid that the Act of 2013 came into force from 1 st January,
2014 and since the land of the petitioners has already been
taken into possession on 24.12.2013, therefore, the petitioners
will not get the benefit of rider of lapsing of Act of 1894.
9. Accordingly, the writ petitions(c) are dismissed. However, liberty
is granted to the petitioners to take recourse of law for
enhancement of their compensation before appropriate forum.
Sd/-
(Narendra Kumar Vyas)
Judge
Digitally
signed by
KISHORE
KISHORE KUMAR
KUMAR DESHMUKH
DESHMUKH Date:
2025.07.29
18:43:44
+0530Deshmukh