← Library
High Court Of ChhattisgarhWPC/1351/2019disposed off

Satish Kumar Pandey v. Union Of India

2019-04-10Hon'Ble Shri Justice Goutam Bhaduri2 pages

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR WPC No. 1351 of 2019

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, Mig, Chandela Nagar, Maharana Pratap Chowk Police Station Civil Lines, Bilaspur, Chhattisgah

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, Mig, Chandela Nagar, Maharana Pratap Chowk Police Station Civil Lines, Bilaspur, Chhattisgah

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, Mig, Chandela Nagar, Maharana Pratap Chowk Police Station Civil Lines, Bilaspur, Chhattisgah

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 Secretary, Ministry Of Road Transport And National Highway, New Delhi. India.,

2. National Highways Authority Of India Through Its Chairman G-5 And 6 Sector10, Dwarka, New Delhi- 110075,

3. Project Director Project Integrated Unit (Piu), D-61/hig-1 (Aakash), Abilasha Parisar, Behind New Bus Stand, Tifra, Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh.,

4. Competent Authority (Land Acuwision) And Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue) Bilaspur, Disrtict- Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh.

---- Respondents ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ For Petitioners :

Mr. Malay Shrivastava, Advocate For Respondent No. 1 to 3 :

Mr. B. Gopakumar, Asst. S.G.

For Respondent No. 4 :

Mr. Anmol Sharma, Panel Lawyer Hon'ble Shri Justice Goutam Bhaduri Order on Board 10.04.2019 Heard 1.

In the instant petition, the grievance raised by the petitioners is that the multiplier for grant of compensation as against the acquisition of land has not been

properly applied and as per the order passed by the Division Bench and different orders of this Court, multiplier 2 should have been applied. 2.

Learned Counsel for the petitioners submits that for the present the petitioners may be allowed to make a fresh representation in view of the order passed by this Court on 06.02.2019 in WPC No. 1649/2017. 3.

Learned State Counsel does not object to filing of fresh representation, which may be decided by the State.

4.

In view of the above position, this writ petition is disposed of with a direction that if the petitioners make a fresh representation within a period of four weeks from today along-with the copy of the order dated 06.02.2019 passed in WPC No. 1649/2017 and other documents, the concerned respondents shall consider and decide the same within a further period of ten weeks from the date of presentation of copy of this order.

Sd/- - (GOUTAM BHADURI) JUDGE Vishakha