Claim for Land Compensation Barred from Administrative Consideration Pending Adjudication of Title in Civil Suit

The petitioners are recorded owners of 0.348 hectares of land in District Raigarh.

They allege that State authorities and Civil Hospital, Kharsia, have been in possession of their land since 1977 without formal acquisition or compensation.

Following a previous High Court direction in W.P.(C) No. 3782/2025, an inspection report was generated and a representation for compensation was submitted to respondent No. 4.

On 19.01.2026, respondent No. 4 rejected the representation on the grounds that a civil suit regarding the same property was currently pending.

The petitioners challenged this rejection via the present writ petition, seeking compensation at market value with 18% interest.

1. Whether the Land Acquisition Officer was justified in rejecting the petitioners' representation for compensation solely on the ground of a pending civil suit regarding title and injunction.

The Court applied the principle of judicial discipline and the doctrine of alternate remedy, emphasizing that when a dispute involves the adjudication of substantive rights—specifically title and possession which are already sub-judice before a competent Civil Court—the extraordinary jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution should not be invoked to bypass the civil trial.

The court relied on the procedural requirement that a petitioner's rights must be clearly determined and adjudicated by a fact-finding court before a writ for compensation against the State can be entertained.

The Court noted that the petitioners had already initiated a civil suit for declaration of title and permanent injunction, which is currently pending.

The Land Acquisition Officer concluded that because the ownership and rights were under legal dispute in a Civil Court, the administrative authority could not adjudicate the claim for compensation at that stage.

The Court concurred with the State’s submission that until the rights of the parties are adjudicated and determined by the competent Civil Court, the claim for compensation cannot be effectively entertained.

Rather than quashing the order, the Court found it appropriate to direct the petitioners to seek their primary remedy through the ongoing civil litigation to establish their legal standing to claim compensation.

It held that the petitioners must first avail their remedy before the concerned Civil Court.

The Court granted the petitioners liberty to file a fresh application for compensation before the authorities once the Civil Court passes its judgment and determines their rights.