Gurubhej Singh Mutreja v. State Of Chhattisgarh

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR WPC No. 24 of 2021 • Gurubhej Singh Mutreja S/o Late Surjeet Singh Mutreja Aged About 61 Years R/o Shantideep Colony, Kawardha, District Kabirdham Chhattisgarh ---- Petitioner

Versus

1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Public Works Department (Bridge Construction), Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur District Raipur Chhattisgarh

2. Collector Kawardha, District Kabirdham Chhattisgarh

3. Executive Engineer Public Works Department (Bridge Construction), Division Rajnandgaon District Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh

4. Sub Divisional Officer Public Works Department (Bridge Construction), Sub Division Kawardha District Kabirdham Chhattisgarh

5. Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue) And Land Acquisition Officer Kawardha District Kabirdham Chhattisgarh ---- Respondents For Petitioner :

Shri Ajit Singh, Advocate For Respondent :

Ms. Sunita Jain, P.L.

Hon'ble Shri Justice Goutam Bhaduri Order On Board 13.01.2021 Heard

1. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner was running a tent house shop. In order to construct a bridge over the river, for dumping all the material the place of the petitioner was acquired as it was near Sakri river. Consequently, the petitioner was given a letter and he was made to vacant the premises and the land was taken on lease and amount of Rs. 50,000/- for lease rent and Rs. 1,00,000/- for damage of construction amount was calculated. He further submits that the said calculation is too meagre as the loss sustained for such deprivation is much more. He further

submits that though the petitioner have not consented to hand over the land, the land was forcefully taken over. It is stated that the the petitioner is not against any development but the loss which has been suffered should be adequately compensated and paid to him, as act of State was unilateral. Therefore, the petitioner has made a representation before the Collector, Kabirdham (Respondent No. 2) and the Executive Engineer (Respondent No. 3) and the Sub Divisional Officer (Respondent No. 4) which may be decided taking into the loss suffered by the petitioner.

2. Perused the documents.

3. Considering the limited prayer of the petitioner and perusal of records shows that the petitioner has already made a representation to the Collector, Kabirdham (Respondent No. 2) and the Executive Engineer (Respondent No. 3) and the Sub Divisional Officer (Respondent No. 4), therefore, it is directed that the Collector shall decide the representation of the petitioner dated 12.11.2020 within a further period of 60 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The petitioner shall also be at liberty to attach the copy of this petition before the Collector in addition to the representation made.

4. With the aforesaid observation, the petition stands disposed of. Sd/- (Goutam Bhaduri) Judge Jyoti