Balkishan v. State Of Chhattisgarh

NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 2011 of 2020

1. Balkishan S/o Amar Singh Sahu, Aged About 42 Years R/o Village Kallubanjari, Tahsil Chhuriya, District Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh

2. Umesh Kumar S/o Late Shri Chinta Prasad Shukla, Aged About 52 Years R/o Village Kallubanjari, Tahsil Chhuriya, District Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh.

3. Rajesh Kumar, S/o Late Shri Chinta Prasad Shukla, Aged About 42 Years R/o Village Kallubanjari, Tahsil Chhuriya, District Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh

4. Gopidhar, S/o Late Shri Gaindlal Patel, Aged About 62 Years R/o Village Kallubanjari, Tahsil Chhuriya, District Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh. ---- Petitioners

Versus

1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Public Works Department, Nirman Bhawan, North Block, Sector-19, Nava Raipur, Atal Nagar, District Raipur Chhattisgarh

2. Project Manager, Chhattisgarh Road Development Corporation Ltd., Third Floor, Sirpur Bhawan Premises, Behind Akashwani, Civil Lines, District Raipur Chhattisgarh

3. The Collector Rajnandgaon, District Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh

4. The S D O (Revenue) District Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh. ---- Respondents For Petitioner :

Mr. Anuroop Panda, Adv.

For State :

Mr. Vivek Ranjan Tiwari, Addl. A.G.

Hon'ble Shri Justice P. Sam Koshy Order on Board 21/09/2020

1. The limited grievance raised by the petitioners in the present writ petition is that the respondents, in the garb of construction and widening of road, have encroached upon the private properties belonging to the petitioners without following any acquisition proceedings and also without payment of any compensation whatsoever.

2. Counsel for the petitioners submits that they have already made repeated representations to the respondent No. 3 but till date no decision has been taken.

3. Considering the limited grievance of the petitioners, this Court is of the opinion that let the respondent No. 3 before whom the petitioners have made the representation, be decided at the earliest in accordance with law. The respondent No. 3 shall also in the process of deciding the representation take note of the fact, as to whether the property of the petitioner in fact has been acquired or taken over for the purpose of construction or not and if yes, under what provision of law and what is the remedy now left for the petitioners. Let a decision be taken within a period of 90(ninety) days from the date of receipt of copy of this order.

4. With the aforesaid observation/direction, the writ petition accordingly stands disposed of Sd/- (P. Sam Koshy) Judge Jyotijha