Chattisgarh High Court
Balram Singh Gond vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 16 March, 2026
Author: Ramesh Sinha
Bench: Ramesh Sinha
1
Digitally
2026:CGHC:12380-DB
signed by
ANURADHA NAFR
ANURADHA TIWARI
TIWARI Date:
2026.03.16
17:47:52
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
+0530
WA No. 222 of 2026
Balram Singh Gond S/o Late Ghurau Ram Aged About 55 Years R/o
Ward No. 10, Purani Basti, Katghora, Tahsil- Katgora, District- Korba
(C.G.)
... Appellant
versus
1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department of
Revenue And Disaster Management, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan,
Atal Nagar, Naya Raipur, District- Raipur (C.G.)
2 - Collector Korba, District- Korba (C.G.)
3 - Sub-Divisional Officer-Cum-Land Acquisition Officer Katghora,
District- Korba (C.G.)
4 - Branch Manager Punjab National Bank, Katghora, District- Korba
(C.G.)
5 - Kaushal Tendulkar Sub-Divisional Officer, Revenue, Katghora,
District- Korba (C.G.)
6 - Sonit Meriya The-Then Tahsildar, Katghora, Presently Posted In
Collector Office, Korba, District- Korba (C.G.)
7 - Dashmat Bai Gond W/o Ful Singh Gond Aged About 68 Years D/o
Ghurau, R/o Village- Baksara, Post Pantora, Tahsil Baloda, District-
Janjgir-Champa (C.G.)
8 - Basant Bai W/o Balam Singh Aged About 47 Years D/o Ghurau, R/o
Village- Tiwarta, Tahsil- Deepka, District- Korba (C.G.)
9 - Indrapal Singh S/o Chandrabhan Singh Aged About 29 Years R/o
Village- Jurali, Tahsil- Pondi Uproda, District- Korba (C.G.)
... Respondents
(Cause-title taken from Case Information System)
2
For Appellant : Mr. Jitendra Pali and Mr. S.R.J. Jaiswal,
Advocates
For State : Mr. Praveen Das, Additional Advocate
General
For Respondent No.4 : Mr. Rishabh Dev Singh, Advocate
For Respondents No.7 : Mr. Rajendra Tripathi, Advocate
to 9
Hon’ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice
Hon’ble Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, Judge
Judgment on Board
Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice
16.03.2026
1. Heard Mr. Jitendra Pali and Mr. S.R.J. Jaiswal, learned counsel
for the appellant as well as Mr. Praveen Das, learned Additional
Advocate General appearing for the State, Mr. Rishabh Dev
Singh, learned counsel for respondent No.4 and Mr. Rajendra
Tripathi, learned counsel for respondents No.7 to 9.
2. By way of this writ appeal, appellant has prayed for following
relief(s):-
“i. To kindly allow the present Writ Appeal and
set aside the impugned order dated 12.01.2026
passed in W.P.(C) No. 3602 of 2022;
ii. To kindly allow the writ petition by quashing
the memo/order dated 26.05.2022 and all
consequential actions taken pursuant thereto
and kindly grant all reliefs as prayed in the writ
petition.
iii. To kindly direct the respondents to release
3the entire compensation amount awarded vide
award dated 15.07.2019 to the Appellant along
with 18% interest.
iv. To kindly pass such further or other orders
as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit, just, and
proper in the facts and circumstances of the
case, in the interest of justice.”
3. The present intra Court appeal has been filed against the order
dated 12.01.2026 passed by the learned Single Judge in WPC
No.3602/2022, whereby the writ petition filed by the writ petitioner
has been disposed of.
4. The brief facts projected before the learned Single Judge were
that the land of the appellant/writ petitioner bearing Khasra No.
52/2, admeasuring 0.146 hectare, P.H. No. 08, situated at Village
Katghora, was acquired by the National Highways Authority of
India for the purpose of widening of National Highway No. 111
under the Bharatmala Project. In pursuance thereof, the
competent authority initiated Land Acquisition Case No. 31/A-
82/2018-19 and, vide award dated 15.07.2019, determined
compensation amounting to ₹79,35,656/-, which was deposited by
NHAI in the bank account of the appellant/writ petitioner.
5. Thereafter, vide memo dated 17.03.2020, the aforesaid amount
was withheld. Subsequently, the Tahsildar submitted a report on
08.04.2022 stating that Dashoda Bai, Dashmat Bai, Basant Bai,
Santoshi Bai and Indrapal Singh are also descendants of the
4
father of the appellant/writ petitioner. Acting upon the said report,
the competent authority directed the bank to apportion the
compensation amount into six equal shares. Consequently, the
shares of the aforesaid five persons were released and only one-
sixth of the compensation amount was retained in the account of
the appellant/writ petitioner.
6. Being aggrieved by the said action, the appellant/writ petitioner
preferred the writ petition bearing WPC No.3602/2022 before the
learned Single Judge, which was disposed of vide order dated
12.01.2026.
7. Calling in question the legality and propriety of the order dated
12.01.2026, the appellant/writ petitioner has approached this
Court by filing the present appeal.
8. Learned counsel for the appellant/writ petitioner submits that the
learned Single Judge failed to appreciate that once an award
determining the quantum of compensation as well as the person
entitled to receive the same has been passed, the competent
authority becomes functus officio and has no jurisdiction to
subsequently alter or dilute such determination by way of
administrative or executive directions. It is contended that the
apportionment directed vide memo dated 26.05.2022, though
styled as an administrative action, in substance amounts to
modification of the award itself, thereby directly affecting the
vested right of the appellant/writ petitioner to receive the entire
5
compensation amount. It is further submitted that the provisions
contained in Sections 75 and 76 of the Right to Fair
Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition,
Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 are applicable only in
cases where the question of apportionment is contemplated or left
unresolved at the stage of passing of the award. The said
provisions do not empower the authorities to reopen a concluded
award in which the entitlement had already been determined in
favour of a single recorded owner. According to learned counsel,
the learned Single Judge erred in relegating the appellant/writ
petitioner to the alternative remedy under Section 64 of the Act,
2013, overlooking the settled principle that the existence of an
alternative remedy is no bar where the impugned action is ex
facie without jurisdiction and violative of Articles 14, 21 and 300-A
of the Constitution of India.
9. Learned counsel also submits that the respondent authorities,
instead of acting as neutral statutory authorities, have assumed
the role of adjudicators of title and succession, which is wholly
alien to the scheme of the Act, 2013. The dispute raised by the
private respondents essentially pertains to inter se civil rights of
succession and inheritance, which can only be adjudicated by a
competent civil court and not by land acquisition authorities under
the guise of apportionment. Moreover, the impugned directions
were issued behind the back of the appellant/writ petitioner,
6
without issuance of notice and without affording any opportunity of
hearing, solely on the basis of a unilateral report submitted by the
Tahsildar, thereby rendering the entire action void for violation of
the principles of natural justice. It is lastly submitted that the
respondent authorities were statutorily bound to act strictly in
accordance with the procedure prescribed under the Act, 2013,
which provides a complete code for determination and
adjudication of entitlement and apportionment of compensation.
Any action taken dehors the statutory procedure is non est and
without authority of law. If the authorities were of the view that any
dispute existed regarding entitlement to the compensation, the
only lawful course available to them was to initiate appropriate
proceedings in accordance with the provisions of the Act, 2013,
and not to issue unilateral executive directions to the bank for
withholding or distributing the compensation amount. The
impugned order, therefore, suffers from errors apparent on the
face of the record and warrants interference by this Court.
10. Per contra, learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the
State, along with learned counsel appearing for respondent No.4
and respondents No.7 to 9, supported the impugned order passed
by the learned Single Judge. It is submitted that the learned
Single Judge has rightly declined to interfere in the matter as the
dispute raised by the appellant essentially pertains to
apportionment of compensation and determination of entitlement
7
among rival claimants, which involves disputed questions of fact.
They further submit that the scheme of the Right to Fair
Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition,
Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 provides a complete
statutory mechanism for adjudication of disputes relating to
compensation, including disputes regarding apportionment and
entitlement, as contemplated under Sections 64, 75 and 76 of the
Act. Therefore, the learned Single Judge has rightly directed the
appellant to avail the statutory remedy before the competent
authority.
11. It is further submitted that the competent authority has not altered
the quantum of compensation determined under the award dated
15.07.2019; rather, the action taken was only to ensure proper
distribution of the compensation amount among persons claiming
interest in the acquired land on the basis of the report submitted
by the revenue authorities. In such circumstances, the direction
issued by the learned Single Judge to raise the dispute before the
Collector for reference under Section 64 of the Act is legally
justified. They further submit that the rival claims raised by the
parties relate to questions of succession and co-ownership, which
necessarily require appreciation of evidence and examination of
relevant revenue records. Such issues cannot be adjudicated in
proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and are
more appropriately decided by the competent authority under the
8
statutory framework of the Act, 2013. It is therefore contended that
the learned Single Judge has exercised jurisdiction in a proper
and judicious manner and the impugned order does not suffer
from any illegality or infirmity warranting interference in the
present intra-court appeal. Accordingly, the writ appeal deserves
to be dismissed.
12. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the
impugned order as well as materials available on record.
13. After appreciating the submissions of learned counsel for the
parties as also the materials on record, while relying upon Section
64 of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land
Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, learned
Single Judge has passed the impugned order in following terms:-
“6. It is not in dispute that after passing the
award, the competent authority cannot modify
or recall the same. However, in the present
case, the quantum of compensation has not
been altered, only its apportionment has been
directed. The scheme of the Right to Fair
Compensation and Transparency in Land
Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement
Act, 2013 (for short, “the Act, 2013”)
specifically contemplates such apportionment
in Sections 75 and 76 with particulars of
apportionment and disputes relating thereto.
Section 64 of the Act, 2013 provides
Reference to Authority and it is extracted
9below:-
(1) Any person interested who has not
accepted the award may, by written
application to the Collector, require that the
matter be referred by the Collector for the
determination of the Authority, as the case
may be, whether his objection be to the
measurement of the land, the amount of the
compensation, the person to whom it is
payable, the rights of Rehabilitation and
Resettlement under Chapters V and VI or
the apportionment of the compensation
among the persons interested:
Provided that the Collector shall, within a
period of thirty days from the date of receipt
of application, make a reference to the
appropriate Authority:
Provided further that where the Collector
fails to make such reference within the
period so specified, the applicant may apply
to the Authority, as the case may be,
requesting it to direct the Collector to make
the reference to it within a period of thirty
days.
(2) The application shall state the grounds
on which objection to the award is taken:
Provided that every such application shall
be made–
(a) if the person making it was present or
represented before the Collector at the time
10when he made his award, within six weeks
from the date of the Collectors award;
(b) in other cases, within six weeks of the
receipt of the notice from the Collector
under section 21, or within six months from
the date of the Collectors award, whichever
period shall first expire:
Provided further that the Collector may
entertain an application after the expiry of
the said period, within a further period of
one year, if he is satisfied that there was
sufficient cause for not filing it within the
period specified in the first proviso.
7. In the case in hand, the petitioner is
aggrieved with the apportionment of the
compensation amount. Further, disputed facts
are involved in the case with regard to
determination of entitlement which requires
appreciation of evidence and materials on
record, which cannot be effectively
undertaken in writ jurisdiction.
8. Accordingly, the petitioner is directed to file
an application before the Collector raising his
dispute within fifteen days from the date of
receipt of a copy of this order. The Collector
shall, within a further period of thirty days,
refer the matter to the competent authority
constituted under Section 51 of the Act, 2013,
which shall decide the same, after granting
due opportunity of hearing and leading of
evidence to the petitioner and the private
11respondents, preferably within six months.
The entitlement to the compensation shall
remain subject to the final outcome of the
proceedings initiated by the competent
authority.
9. With the aforesaid observations and
directions, the writ petition stands disposed
of.”
14. A plain reading of the impugned order passed by the learned
Single Judge would reveal that the learned Single Judge has not
upheld any modification of the award dated 15.07.2019 insofar as
the quantum of compensation is concerned, but has only taken
note of the dispute relating to the apportionment and entitlement
of the compensation amount amongst the persons claiming
interest therein. The learned Single Judge has rightly observed
that the statutory scheme contained in the Act of 2013 provides a
complete mechanism for resolution of such disputes, particularly
under Sections 64, 75 and 76 of the Act, which specifically deal
with objections to the award, disputes regarding apportionment,
and determination of the person entitled to receive the
compensation.
15. In the considered opinion of this Court, once a dispute arises with
regard to entitlement or apportionment of compensation amongst
rival claimants, such dispute necessarily involves determination of
factual issues, including the status of the parties claiming
succession or interest in the acquired land. Adjudication of such
12
issues inevitably requires appreciation of evidence and
examination of the respective claims of the parties, which cannot
be conveniently undertaken in exercise of writ jurisdiction under
Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The learned Single Judge,
therefore, has rightly declined to entertain the writ petition on
merits and instead relegated the appellant/writ petitioner to avail
the statutory remedy provided under Section 64 of the Act, 2013.
16. It is well settled that where a statute provides a specific and
efficacious remedy for adjudication of disputes, particularly those
involving disputed questions of fact and competing claims to
compensation, the writ court ordinarily refrains from exercising its
extraordinary jurisdiction and directs the parties to pursue the
remedy provided under the statute. In the present case, the
learned Single Judge has merely directed the appellant/writ
petitioner to approach the Collector for raising the dispute,
whereupon the matter is to be referred to the competent authority
constituted under Section 51 of the Act, 2013 for adjudication in
accordance with law after affording due opportunity of hearing and
leading of evidence to all concerned parties. Such a course
adopted by the learned Single Judge cannot be said to suffer from
any illegality, arbitrariness or jurisdictional error warranting
interference by this Court in exercise of its intra-court appellate
jurisdiction.
17. It is also significant to note that the learned Single Judge has not
13
finally adjudicated upon the rights of the parties with regard to the
entitlement to the compensation amount, but has merely directed
that the issue be decided by the competent statutory authority in
accordance with the procedure prescribed under the Act, 2013.
The learned Single Judge has further safeguarded the interest of
the parties by directing that the entitlement to compensation shall
remain subject to the final outcome of the proceedings to be
initiated before the competent authority. Thus, the impugned order
does not cause any irreparable prejudice to the appellant/writ
petitioner, as the question of entitlement remains open for
determination before the appropriate forum.
18. In view of the aforesaid analysis, we are of the considered view
that the learned Single Judge has exercised his discretion
judiciously and in consonance with the statutory scheme
governing land acquisition matters. We do not find any perversity,
illegality or infirmity in the impugned order dated 12.01.2026
passed in W.P.(C) No. 3602 of 2022 so as to warrant interference
by this Court in the present intra-court appeal.
19. Consequently, the writ appeal, being devoid of merit, deserves to
be and is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs.
Sd/- Sd/-
(Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha)
Judge Chief Justice
Anu
