High Court Of ChhattisgarhWPC/1120/2020disposed off

Mahesh Nachrani v. State Of Chhattisgarh

2020-06-09Hon'Ble Shri Justice P. Sam Koshy2 pages

NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 1120 of 2020 Mahesh Nachrani S/o Shri Radhakishan Nachrani Aged About 41 Years R/o- Panchsheel Nagar, Civil Line Raipur, Tahsil And District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh ---- Petitioner

Versus

1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Revenue Department, Mantralaya, Atal Nagar, Nava Raipur, District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh

2. The Collector, Bilaspur District- Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh

3. The Sub Divisional Officer, (Revenue), Cum Prescribed Authority, Land Acquisition, Bilaspur District- Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh

4. Union Of India Bhartiya Rashtriya Rajmarg Pradhikaran, Pote Pariwahan Sadakparivahan Aur Rajmarg Mantralaya, Through- Chief Engineer Public Works Department, National Highway Area, Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh

5. The Upper Commissioner/ Arbitrator, Bilaspur Division- Bilaspur, DistrictBilaspur, Chhattisgarh ---- Respondents For Petitioner :

Mr. Pushpendra Kumar Patel, Advocate For State :

Mr. Jitendra Pali, Dy. AG For Union of India :

Mr. B. Gopa Kumar, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice P. Sam Koshy Order on Board 09/06/2020

1. The limited relief that petitioner has sought for is for an appropriate direction to the respondent No.3 to act in accordance with the order passed by the Additional Commissioner, dated 05.07.2019 in case No. 22 A-82/ 2018-19.

2. The limited prayer is not opposed by the counsel for the respondents except for the apprehension as to whether this order of the Additional

Commissioner has been challenged before any forum or not this needs verification before Sub Divisional Officer acts upon the order.

3. The apprehension of the respondent seems to be fair and reasonable. Accordingly, the writ petition stands disposed of directing respondent No.3 to take appropriate recourse available to comply with the order dated 05.07.2019 passed by the Additional Commissioner, Bilaspur in the aforementioned case. While deciding, the Sub Divisional Officer respondent No.3 is expected to get the matter verified whether the order of the Additional Commissioner has been subjected to challenge before any authority/Court or not.

4. It is expected that respondent No.3 SDO would take a decision preferably within a period of 45 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order.

5. With the aforesaid directions, the writ petition stands disposed of. Sd/- (P. Sam Koshy) Judge Rohit