Rejection of mutual consent purchase necessitates formal land acquisition proceedings under the Act of 2013.

The petitioners, owners of land situated in Dongargarh, District Rajnandgaon, challenged the State's attempt to acquire their property

On 09.02.2026, the Collector (Respondent No. 2) issued proposals to purchase the subject land under the Chhattisgarh Mutual Consent Purchase Policy, 2016

The petitioners formally declined these proposals on 16.02.2026; however, they alleged that the State authorities continued to compel them to accept the offers and were attempting to initiate construction on the land without following statutory acquisition procedures

Consequently, the petitioners approached the High Court seeking a writ of mandamus to compel the State to acquire the land strictly under the provisions of the 2013 Act

1. Whether the State is mandated to initiate land acquisition proceedings under the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 following the petitioners' rejection of a proposal under the Chhattisgarh Mutual Consent Purchase Policy, 2016?

Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013

Chhattisgarh Mutual Consent Purchase Policy, 2016, as a voluntary alternative to formal acquisition that cannot be unilaterally enforced if a landowner declines the proposal

The petitioners argued that since they had explicitly rejected the mutual consent proposal, any further action by the State to occupy or build on the land without a formal award under the Act of 2013 would be arbitrary and illegal

During the proceedings, the State counsel, acting on instructions, clarified that because the petitioners had declined the mutual consent proposals, the State did not intend to act upon them further

The State provided an undertaking that it would instead proceed to acquire the subject land by following the mandatory statutory procedure prescribed under the Act of 2013

The Court, evaluating these submissions, determined that the State’s commitment to follow the 2013 Act effectively addressed the petitioners' primary grievance, rendering further adjudication on the merits unnecessary

The Court held that since the State conceded it would not act upon the proposals issued under the 2016 Policy and would instead follow the statutory acquisition process, no surviving grievance remained for the Court to resolve

All pending interlocutory applications were similarly disposed of