Jeewanlal v. State Of Chhattisgarh

-1NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR WPC No. 2211 of 2020 Jeewanlal S/o Shivram Singh, Aged About 58 Years, R/o House No. 105, Kanjipani - 6, Village Kanjipani, P.S. Pali, Tahsil Pali, District Korba, Chhattisgarh ---- Petitioner

Versus

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

2. Collector, District Korba, Chhattisgarh

3. Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue) Cum Administrator For Rehabilitation And Resettlement Katghora, District Korea Chhattisgarh

4. Satyanarayan Singh S/o Late Gambhir Singh, R/o Village Kanjipani, Chaitma, Tehsil Pali, District Korba, Chhattisgarh ------ Respondents For Petitioner :

Mr. N. Naha. Roy, Advocate.

For State :

Mr. Anand Verma, Dy. Govt. Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice P. Sam Koshy Order on Board 05.10.2020

1. The limited grievance of the petitioner in the present writ petition is that the petitioner is a resident of Village : Kanjipani, P. H. No. 23, Chaitma, Tahsil and Police Station: Pali, District: Korba, (C.G.). The land belonging to the petitioner is now under acquisition for the purpose of widening and construction of the Bilaspur-Katghora N.H. No. 130.

2. The contention of the counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner

-2has been residing in the said village for a period of more than 48 years and he has been living with the little agricultural work over the said land. According to the counsel for the petitioner, under the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (hereinafter referred as "the Act, 2013"), the petitioner falls within the category of an "affected family". He is therefore entitled for compensation as also for appropriate rehabilitation and resettlement. It is also the contention of the counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner has already moved before the concerned Sub-Divisional Officer for suitable compensation and rehabilitation benefits under the Act of 2013, which the authorities may consider in accordance with law at the earliest.

3. Learned Deputy Govt. Advocate, on the other hand, opposing the petition submits that except for the contention of the counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is in occupation of the land for a period of more than 40 years, there is no document or any proof to establish his right over the said peace of land. According to the petitioner, the land, from the pleadings, reflects to be owned by the Respondent No. 4 and the Respondent No. 4 is the person who has been notified in the award for receiving compensation, therefore, the petitioner as such does not have any right whatsoever for claiming any compensation or any benefit under the Act, 2013.

4. Be that as it may, since the petitioner has already approached the Sub-Divisional Officer for an appropriate decision on the application for grant of compensation and other benefits under the Act of 2013, the writ petition at this juncture stands disposed off, directing the

-3Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 to take an appropriate decision in accordance with law within a period of 90 days from the date of receipt of copy of this Order.

5. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case, the respondent-authorities are expected to take a decision purely in accordance with law governing the field. The petitioner would also be at liberty to approach the Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 for deferring the releasing of compensation to the Respondent No. 4 pending his application before the authorities.

6. With the aforesaid direction, the present writ petition stands disposed off.

Sd/- (P. Sam Koshy) Judge Khatai