High Court Of ChhattisgarhWPC/2223/2017disposed off

Satish Kumar Pandey v. Union Of India

2017-10-03Hon'Ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal2 pages

NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR Writ Petition (C) No.2223 of 2017

1. Satish Kumar Pandey S/o Motilal Pandey, Aged About 65 Years R/o Village Chandrakhuri, Tahsil Patharia, District Mungeli, Chhattisgarh, Presently Residing At A-23, M I G, Chandela Nagar, Maharana Pratap Chowk, Police Station Civil Lines, Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh

2. Hemalata Pandey W/o Satish Chandra, Aged About 54 Years R/o Village Chandrakhuri, Tahsil Patharia, District Mungeli, Chhattisgarh, Presently Residing At A-23, M I G, Chandela Nagar, Maharana Pratap Chowk, Police Station Civil Lines, Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh

3. Anjana Pandey W/o Prakash Pandey, Aged About 50 Years R/o Village Chandrakhuri, Tahsil Patharia, District Mungeli, Chhattisgarh, Presently Residing At A-23, M I G, Chandela Nagar, Maharana Pratap Chowk, Police Station Civil Lines, Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh

4. Chandrika Prasad S/o Ramadhar, Aged About 38 Years R/o Village Chandrakhuri, Tahsil Patharia, District Mungeli, Chhattisgarh ---- Petitioners

Versus

1. Union Of India Through The Secretary, Ministry Of Road Transport and Highways, New Delhi

2. National Highway Authority Of India, Through Its Chairman, G-5 & 6, Sector 10, Dwarka, New Delhi 110075

3. Project Director, Project Integrated Unit (P I U), D-61/ H I G-1 (Aakash), Abhilasha Parisar, Behind New Bus Stand, Tifra, Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh

4. Competent Authority And Land Acquisition Officer-Cum-Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue), Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. ---- Respondents For Petitioners :

Mr. Malay Shrivatava, Advocate For Respondents :

Mr. Bhupendra Singh and Ms. Fouzia Mirza, Advocates Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal Order On Board

03/10/2017 (1) Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would submit that land of the petitioners have been acquired for construction of BilaspurRaipur 4/6 Lane Road, but compensation has not been determined and paid to them.

(2) Be that as it may, respondent No.4 is directed to consider and decide the case of the petitioners for compensation and to do the needful strictly in accordance with law as per prevalent policy within a period of 60 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order. (3) With the aforesaid observation, the writ petition finally stands disposed of. No order as to costs.

Sd/- (Sanjay K. Agrawal) Judge L/-