Chhattisgarh High Court Quashes Land Acquisition Over Misuse of Urgency Clause in Naya Raipur Project

News Citation : 2026 LN (HC) 293

April 30, 2026 : The High Court of Chhattisgarh at Bilaspur has set aside land acquisition proceedings initiated for the Naya Raipur development project, holding that the State wrongly invoked the urgency clause to bypass the statutory right of landowners to be heard.

The case arose from a petition filed by Kamal Chand Jain, a Raipur-based landowner, who challenged the acquisition of his agricultural land in village Chhatauna. The land had been earmarked for development projects under the Naya Raipur Development Authority (NRDA). Jain argued that the authorities illegally invoked urgency provisions under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, thereby denying him the opportunity to object to the acquisition.

According to the record, the acquisition process began in 2011 when notifications were issued under Sections 4 and 17 of the 1894 Act, invoking the urgency clause. This allowed the State to dispense with the hearing process under Section 5A, which ordinarily gives landowners a chance to raise objections. A declaration under Section 6 followed in 2012, and awards were later passed in 2013 and 2014.

Jain maintained that his land had been under cultivation for over two decades and included a developed farm and plantation. He repeatedly approached authorities seeking exclusion of his land, but his representations were either ignored or rejected. He also alleged procedural irregularities, including the passing of two separate awards for the same acquisition.

The State defended its action, arguing that the land fell within a critical “Layer-1” zone of the Naya Raipur project and was urgently required for public purposes, including infrastructure and institutional development. It also claimed that compensation had been determined and possession had been taken.

However, the Court found these justifications insufficient. It observed that the State failed to demonstrate any real urgency that warranted bypassing the hearing process. The timeline of events, including a gap of over a year between key notifications and delays in passing awards, undermined the claim of urgency.

Justice Sachin Singh Rajput emphasized that invoking the urgency clause is an exception, not the rule, and cannot be used mechanically. It reiterated that Section 5A embodies the principle of natural justice and grants landowners a valuable right to object. Dispensing with this right requires strong and compelling reasons, which were absent in this case.

Relying on multiple Supreme Court rulings, the Court held that planned development projects, such as building a capital city, do not automatically justify urgent acquisition without hearing affected parties. It concluded that the State’s action was arbitrary and violated legal safeguards.

As a result, the High Court declared the invocation of the urgency clause illegal and set aside the acquisition proceedings insofar as they concerned the petitioner’s land.

Case Reference : WPC No. 402 of 2014, Kamal Chand Jain vs State of Chhattisgarh and Others. Counsels: For the Petitioner: Shri Ashish Shrivastava, Senior Advocate, along with Shri Udit Khatri, Shri Rohishek Verma, Shri Rahul Ambast, Ms. Shotabdi Bagchi, Shri Ashutosh Shrivastava and Shri Ishaan Singh Rathore, Advocates; For the Respondents/State: Ms. Shailja Shukla, Deputy Government Advocate; For Respondent No. 5: Shri Pravin Das, Advocate.