Anand Agrawal v. State Of Chhattisgarh

NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR WPC No. 3144 of 2017 Anand Agrawal S/o Late Shri Narsingh Das Agrawal, Aged About 74 Years R/o Sadar Bazar, Tahsil And Police Station Raigarh, Raigarh, District Raigarh, Chhattisgarh ---- Petitioner

Versus

1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of Revenue, Mantralaya, Raipur, Chhattisgarh

2. The Under Secretary, Revenue And Disaster Management Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, New Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh

3. The Secretary, Department Of Commerce And Industry, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, New Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh

4. The Chief General Manager, District Commerce And Industry Centre, Raigarh, District Raigarh, Chhattisgarh

5. The Collector, Raigarh, District Raigarh, Chhattisgarh

6. The Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue) Cum Land Acquisition Officer, Raigarh, District Raigarh, Chhattisgarh

7. National Thermal Power Corporation, Through Its Group General Manager, NTPC Limited, Lara, Super Thermal Power Project, Lara, Chapora, Tahsil Pussore, District Raigarh, Chhattisgarh ---- Respondents For Petitioner :

Mr. Siddharth Dubey, Advocate.

For Respondent No.7 :

Mr. N.K. Shukla, Senior Adv. With Mr. B.D. Guru, Advocate.

For Respondents/State :

Mr. P. Bharat, Additional Adv. General.

Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal Order On Board 30/11/17 1.

Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner has raised an objection regarding acquisition of his land on 15.03.2016 before

the competent authorities but he may also be allowed to raise further supplementary objections under Section 11 of the Right to Fair in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 which has been raised in the writ petition on 27.05.2017.

2.

At this stage, Mr. P. Bharat, Additional Advocate General appearing for the State would submit that the petitioner may quickly raise an objection and file it by day after tomorrow and that will be considered. 3.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties. 4.

The prayer appears to be fair and reasonable and is accordingly allowed.

5.

Be that as it may, the petitioner is at liberty to file further supplementary objections raised in the writ petition and, in that event, the competent authority will consider and decide the petitioner's objections expeditiously.

6.

With the aforesaid observation, the writ petition stands finally disposed of. However, the petitioner would be at liberty to proceed further in case exigency arises.

Sd/- (Sanjay K. Agrawal) Judge Priyanka