High Court Of ChhattisgarhWPC/3178/2016disposed off

Madan Lal Sahu v. State Of Chhattisgarh

2016-12-21Hon'Ble Shri Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra2 pages

NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR WPC No. 3178 of 2016

1. Madan Lal Sahu S/o Late Rathram Sahu, Aged About 49 Years Occupation Service, R/o Village Madai, Police Station Seepat, Tahsil Masturi, Civil & Revenue District Bilaspur, (Chhattisgarh)

2. Chumuk Lal Sahu, S/o Late Rathram Sahu, Aged About 64 Years Occupation Agriculturist, R/o Village Madai, Police Station Seepat, Tahsil Masturi, Civil & Revenue District Bilaspur, (Chhattisgarh)

3. Smt. Keja Bai Sahu, D/o Late Bali Ram Sahu, Aged About 57 Years Occupation Agriculturist, R/o Village Madai, Police Station Seepat, Tahsil Masturi, Civil & Revenue District Bilaspur, (Chhattisgarh)

4. Puriram Nishad, S/o Late Firtu Ram Nishad, Aged About 67 Years R/o Village Madai, Police Station Seepat, Tahsil Masturi, Civil & Revenue District Bilaspur, (Chhattisgarh) ---- Petitioner

Versus

1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through: Secretary, Department Of The Revenue, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Raipur, Police Station Rakhi, District Raipur, Civil & Revenue District Raipur, (Chhattisgarh)

2. Collector, Collectorate Compound Bilaspur, Police Station Civil Line, Tahsil & District Bilaspur (Chhattisgarh), Civil And Revenue District Bilaspur, (Chhattisgarh)

3. Sub Divisional Officer, Cum Land Acquisition Officer Masturi, Police Station & Tahsil Masturi, Civil And Revenue District Bilaspur, (Chhattisgarh)

4. Executive Engineer Kharang, Water Resources Department Bilaspur, Police Station Civil Llines, Tahsil, Civil And Revenue District Bilaspur, (Chhattisgarh) ---- Respondent For Petitioners : Shri Ratnesh Kumar Agrawal, Advocate.

For Respondent/State : Shri A.S. Kachhawaha, Additional A.G.

Hon'ble Shri Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra Order On Board 21/12/2016

1. The present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been preferred for a direction to the respondent/Collector, Bilaspur to pass necessary orders on the petitioners' application under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short 'the Act, 1894').

2. The application has been preferred for making reference to the principal civil Court of original jurisdiction for the reason that the petitioners are not satisfied with the quantum of compensation by way of award upon acquisition of their land for Leelagar Diversion Project.

3. It is argued that the Collector should have passed order one way or the other so that the petitioners may take recourse to the provisions of law to seek higher compensation.

4. Considering the fact that the application is pending for the last more than 3 years, ends of justice would be served if the Collector, Bilaspur is directed to consider and decide the application under Section 18 of the Act, 1894 expeditiously, preferably within a period of 3 months from the date of submission of certified copy of the order. Ordered accordingly.

Sd/- Judge (Prashant Kumar Mishra) Barve