Ajay Kumar Choubey v. State Of Chhattisgarh And ORS

1,

IN THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT

BILASPUR (C.G.) W. P. (Cl No. W) of2015 PETITIONER Ajay Kumar Choubey son of Shri Bramhanand Choubey, aged alu afcc7 "Y\^M about years, resident of Mangla Road, near Petrol Pump, Mangla, Post-Mangla, Tahsil, ^ttKO--;^^ Civil 85 Revenue District-Bilaspur ^<d- (C.G.)

VERSUS

RESPONDENTS :1.

State of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Urban Administration and Development Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, New Raipur (C.G.) 2.

The Collector, Bilaspur, DistrictBilaspur (C.G.) 3.

The Sub-Divisional officer/Land Acquisition Officer, Bilaspur y:.A yrs^-v (C.G.) '

4.

Municipal Corporation, Bilaspur, through the Commissioner, Bilaspur (C.G.) WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA i '.MS&:

T

'l <y^.'{ ../-'•••'

•KE^eS&'

^-..

f^'3' ^ HIGH COURT^F CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR W.P.(C)No.414of2015 PETITIONER Ajay Kumar Choubey

Versus

RESPONDENTS State of Chhattisgarh and others Shri Shashi Kumar Kushwaha, counsel for the petitioner. Shri Ashutosh Pandey, P.L. for the State.

SINGLE BENCH :

HON'BLE SHRI PRASHANT KUMAR MISHRA, J.

?

;

II ORAL ORDER (09/03/2015) In this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India the petitioner is seeking direction to the respondent No.2 - Collector, Bilaspur to send the reference application of the petitioner to the competent Court for adjudication.

2.

Petitioner had earlier prefeFred W.P.(C) No. 1419/2012 seeking action against the respondents in proceeding to acquire his land and rejecting his objection on 13/07/2012. The writ petition was partly allowed by order dated 01/05/2014 and the matter was remitted to the Land Acquisition Officer for considering petitioner's objection afresh. The land acquisition proceedings eventually came to an end in form of an award dated 10/06/2014. The petitioner thereafter moved another writ petition bearing W.P.(C) No.

1403/2014 seeking enhancement of amount of compensation. This petition was disposed of on 30/07/2014 by observing that petitioner's remedy lies in moving an application under Section 18 ofthe Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, 'Arf 1894') before the Collector.

-a.'

3.

It appears, the petitioner thereafter moved an application before the Collector under the Act 1894, however, the said application has not yet been sent to the competent Court for adjudication in accordance with law. 4.

Considering the entire fact situation of the case, the writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondent No.2 - Collector, Bilaspur to pass appropriate order for sending the petitioner's application under Section 18 of the Act, 1894 read with Seetion 64 of Right to Fair Compensation and Transparencyir|L8ngAoquisifi6n, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 for sending the same for adjudication to the jurisdictional Civi] Court. The necessary action may be taken by the Collector, Bilaspur within a period of two months from the date ofsubmission of certified copy ofthis order. 5.

It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case and the respondent-authorities shall decide the matter, on its own merits, strictly''in aecordance with law, without treating any observation made in this order.asopiniQn on the merits of the case. Sd//- Prashant Kumar Mishra Judge ^