Mahetrin Bai v. State Of Chhattisgarh

NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 1423 of 2020 1.

Mahetrin Bai W/o Pitar Lal Chandra Aged About 42 Years Owner Of Land Bearing Khasra No. 39/3, 2.

Kushal Prasad Sahu S/o Ramprasad Sahu Aged About 56 Years Owner Of Land Bearing Khasra No. 62/1(Kh), 65/1, 65/2 (Kh), 3.

Kartik Ram S/o Ghurau Ram Aged About 76 Years Owner Of Land Bearing Khasra No. 63, 64, All R/o Village Bhothiya, Tahsil Jaijaipur, District Janjgir Champa Chhattisgarh., District : Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh ---- Petitioners

Versus

1.

State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of Public Works Department, New Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh.

2.

Executive Engineer P.W.D. Champa Division, District Janjgir Champa Chhattisgarh.

3.

Superintending Engineer P.W.D. Bilaspur Division Bilaspur, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh.

4.

Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue) Sakti, District Janjgir Champa Chhattisgarh.

5.

Collector Janjgir Champa, District Janjgir Champa Chhattisgarh. 6.

Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue) Malkharauda, District Janjgir Champa Chhattisgarh.

---- Respondents For Petitioners :

Mr. Sushobhit Singh, Advocate For State :

Mr. Jitendra Pali, Dy. A.G.

Hon'ble Shri Justice P. Sam Koshy Order on Board 20/07/2020

1. The grievance of the petitioners seems to be the inaction on the part of the Land Acquisition Officer before whom the acquisition proceedings in respect of the properties belonging to the petitioners are pending.

2. According to the petitioners, a preliminary notification was issued as early as on 01.04.2015, but the acquisition proceedings have till date not been finalized and the petitioners also have not been paid any penny. Though, according to the petitioners, their properties have already been acquired and the respondents have also constructed road over the said property.

3. Learned State counsel at this juncture submits that since the preliminary notification seems to have been issued on 01.04.2015, the proceedings must have been concluded by now, if not, let the petitioners file a representation before the concerned Land Acquisition Officer, who in turn shall consider and decide the same at the earliest.

4. Given the said submissions by the counsel appearing on either side, this Court is of the opinion that in the event if the land acquisition proceedings have been initiated, the same should have to be finalized at the earliest. If it has not been finalized, let the petitioners file a detailed representation before the concerned Land Acquisition Officer, who in turn shall consider the same and conclude the proceedings if not already done in accordance with the provisions of

law applicable, at the earliest preferably within an outer limit of six months from the date of receipt of the copy of this order. 5.

With the aforesaid observations, the present writ petition stands disposed of.

Sd/- (P. Sam Koshy) Judge Ved