Manharan Chandra v. State Of Chhattisgarh

NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR Writ Petition (C) No. 645 of 2020 Manharan Chandra S/o Late Shiv Prasad Chandra, Aged About 47 Years, R/o Jaijaipur Baradwar Road, Jaijaipur, P. S. And Tahsil Jaijaipur District Janjgir Champa, Chhattisgarh ---- Petitioner

Versus

1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Department Of Revenue And Land Acquisition, Mantralaya, Nawa Raipur, Atal Nagar, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh

2. The Collector, Janjgir Champa, District Janjgir Champa, Chhattisgarh

3. The Executive Engineer, Minimata Hasdeo Bango, Canal Project Division No. 03, Sakti, District Janjgir Champa, Chhattisgarh

4. The Sub Divisional Officer, Department Of Irrigation, Irrigation Colony, Jaijaipur, District Janjgir Champa, Chhattisgarh

5. The Sub Divisional Officer, Hasdeo Bango, Canal Project, Sub Division No. II, Jaijaipur, District Janjgir Champa, Chhattisgarh

6. The Tahsildar, Jaijaipur, District Janjgir Champa, Chhattisgarh ---- Respondents For Petitioner :

Mr. Vikash Pandey, Advocate For State :

Mr. Anshuman Shrivastava, P.L.

Hon'ble Shri Justice P. Sam Koshy Order On Board 24.02.2020

1. The limited grievance that the petitioner has got is that though the property of the petitioner was acquired by the respondents way back in

the year 2008, till date he has not been paid any compensation against the said acquisition and his representation/claim is pending consideration before the authorities.

2. According to the petitioner, his property bearing Khasra No. 5506/3 admeasuring 0.19 acre situates at village Jaijaipur, District Janjgir Champa. The said property was acquired by the respondents for Minimata Bango project for construction of canal. The property stood in the name of the father of the petitioner. Though the property was acquired in the year 2008, till date no compensation whatsoever has been paid to the petitioner's family. Meanwhile, the father of the petitioner has expired and now it is the petitioner who is in possession of the said property and is entitled for compensation.

3. Given the limited relief that the petitioner has sought for, let the respondents 2 to 5 take appropriate decision on the claim of the petitioner seeking compensation against the land belonging to the petitioner which has been acquired, at the earliest preferably within a period of 4 months from the date of receipt of copy of this order. The claim of the petitioner shall be decided after due verification of his entitlement.

4. With the aforesaid observation, the writ petition stands disposed of. Sd/- P. Sam Koshy Judge Khatai