Balbhadra Prasad Dwivedi v. State Of Chhattisgarh,

NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WP(C) No. 1111 of 2020 Balbhadra Prasad Dwivedi S/o Late Bharat Lal Dwivedi, Aged About 56 Years R/o Village - Sukulpara Kharaud, Tahsil - Pamgarh, District - Janjgir - Champa Chhattisgarh. ---- Petitioner

Versus

1. State Of Chhattisgarh, Through The Secretary, Water Resources Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Nawa Raipur Chhattisgarh.

2. The Collector And Land Acquisition Officer, Janjgir, District - Janjgir - Champa Chhattisgarh.

3. The Sub - Divisional Officer ( Revenue ), Janjgir, District - Janjgir - Champa Chhattisgarh.

4. The Executive Engineer, Hasdeo Canal Water Management Division, Janjgir, District - Janjgir - Champa Chhattisgarh. ----Respondents For Petitioner :

Mr. Kamlesh Kumar Pandey, Advocate.

For State :

Mr, V.R. Tiwari, Addl. A.G.

Ff Fop Fo s For .

Hon'ble Shri Justice P. Sam Koshy Order on Board 10/08/2020

1. The limited relief that the petitioner at this stage prays for is that the respondents No. 2 & 3 may be directed to take a decision on the repeated representations that the petitioner has made to the respondents No. 2 & 3 seeking compensation for the land belonging to the petitioner at village-Bhaderiyapara, P.H.No. 13, R.I.C. Rahod, Tah. Pamgarh, District Janjgir Champa. Against which no compensation whatsoever has been paid to the petitioner till date.

2. The learned counsel for the State at this juncture submits that let the petitioner make a fresh detailed representation to the respondent No. 2 & 3 in this regard who inturn shall decide the same in accordance with law at the earliest.

3. Given the said facts of the case, this Court is of the opinion that since the claim of the petitioner is only for compensation against the land

belonging to the petitioner which has been acquired, the authorities are only to verify whether the claim of the petitioner of his property being acquired is proper or not and whether the petitioner at any point of time has been paid the compensation or not.

4. It is by now a well settled proposition of law that in the event if the private property of an individual is acquired by the State, the Respondents are supposed to pay compensation for the land belonging to the petitioner which has been acquired. Even otherwise the right of the petitioner stands guaranteed under Article 300 A of the Constitution of India.

5. Given the facts, let the petitioner in addition to the representation that he has repeatedly made, make a fresh claim/representation before the respondents No. 2 & 3 who inturn shall duly verify the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case and take an appropriate decision at the earliest preferably within a period of 3 months from the date of receipt of the fresh representation to be made by the petitioner.

6. With the aforesaid observations/directions, the writ petition accordingly stands disposed of.

Sd/- (P. Sam Koshy) Judge Jyotijha