High Court Of ChhattisgarhWPC/235/2017disposed off

Shouki Lal Mahant v. Union Of India

2017-03-03Hon'Ble Shri Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra2 pages

NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR WPC No. 235 of 2017 • Shouki Lal Mahant S/o Late Dharam Dayal, Aged About 39 Years R/o. Village Baroud, P. S. Gharghoda, District Raigarh (Chhattisgarh) ---- Petitioner

Versus

1. Union Of India Ministry Of Coal, Through : Secretary, Shashtri Bhawan, New Delhi

2. Secretary, State Of Chhattisgarh, Revenue Department, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, New Raipur, District Raipur (Chhattisgarh)

3. Collector, Raigarh, District Raigarh (Chhattisgarh).

4. South Eastern Coalfields Limited, Through : Its Chairman-Cum-Managing Director, Head Office, Basant Vihar, Seepat Road, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur (Chhattisgarh)

5. General Manager, South Eastern Coalfields Limited, Raigarh, Area, District Raigarh (Chhattisgarh) ---- Respondents For Petitioner :

Shri Yogesh Chandra, Advocate For Respondent-SECL :

Shr VR Tiwari, Advocate For Respondents-State :

Shri Rajendra Tripathi, PL for the State Hon'ble Shri Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra Order On Board 03/03/2017

1. Petitioner would contend that his land has been acquired but compensation has not been paid by the SECL.

2. It appears, the petitioner and prior to him his father was Kotwar of village Baroud, Tahsil Gharghoda, District Raigarh. Presumably compensation was not paid to him for the reason that the land held by the petitioner was

service land, however, subsequently, petitioner has been conferred Bhoomiswami rights over the land, therefore, according to the petitioner, he is entitled to compensation which the SECL is not paying.

3. Shri VR Tiwari, learned counsel for the respondent SECL would submit that the petitioner has made representation to the General Manager, SECL, Raighar Area, vide Annexure P-6, which has not yet been decided, therefore, liberty may be reserved in favour of SECL to decide the representation in accordance with law.

4. Considering the submission made by learned counsel for the parties, ends of justice would be served if the writ petition is disposed of with direction to respondents No.4 & 5, particularly respondent No.5 to take an early decision in the matter, preferably within a period of three months from today.

5. Accordingly, the writ petition stands disposed of. Sd/- Judge Prashant Kumar Mishra Ashu