Ishwar Prasad Verma, v. State Of Chhattisgarh

NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 5118 of 2021 1.

Ishwar Prasad Verma, S/o Shri Balmukund Verma, Aged About 79 Years 2.

Yugal Kumar Verma, S/o Shri Dhananath Verma, Aged About 77 Years 3.

Neelambar Prasad Verma, S/o Shri Shyam Sundar Verma, Aged About 76 Years 4.

Damyanti Patel, W/o Murlidhar Patel, Aged About 65 Years 5.

Ratiram Verma, S/o Shri Ramcharan Verma, Aged About 47 Years All R/o Village, Post - Hardi, Police Station And Tehsil Sarangarh, District Raigarh, Chhattisgarh.

---- Petitioners

Versus

1.

State Of Chhattisgarh Through Collector District Raigarh, Chhattisgarh 2.

Competent Authority For Land Acquisition - Cum - Sub Divisional Magistrate, Raigarh, District Raigarh, Chhattisgarh 3.

Executive Engineer, Public Works Department, Raigarh, Division Raigarh, District Raigarh, Chhattisgarh 4.

Sub Divisional Officer, Public Works Department, Srangarh, Sub - Division, Srangarh, District Raigarh, Chhattisgarh 5.

Airport Authority Of India, Through Director Airport, Swami Vivekanand Airport, Raipur, Chhattisgarh ----Respondents For Petitioners :

Mr. Ashutosh Trivedi, Advocate For State :

Ms. Priyamvada Singh, Deputy G.A.

For Respondent No.5 :

Mr. Akash Pandey, Advocate Hon'ble Mr. Justice P. Sam Koshy Order on Board 13/12/2021 1.

The claim of the petitioners in the present writ petition is for issuance of a writ to the respondents for disbursement of the compensation to the petitioners for the land belonging to them, which is said to have

been acquired by the Public Works Department for the construction of Air-Strip at village Hardi, District Raigarh. 2.

From the perusal of the record and from the pleadings and submissions made by the counsel for the petitioners it appears that there were some alleged acquisition of land by the respondents in 1965 for the construction of Air-Strip at village Hardi. However, the claim for compensation has now been filed by the petitioner after a period of more than half a century.

3.

The writ petition is bereft of any details, so far as the land which belongs to the petitioners, the area which is said to have been acquired, the amount of compensation that has been determined by the respondents, etc. The entire writ petition seems to be based only upon certain informations obtained under the Right to Information Act that to disclosing that the compensation having not paid to the petitioners. That by itself would not be a ground for entertaining a writ petition at this juncture for the purpose of grant of compensation against the alleged land belonging to the petitioners which stood acquired by the respondents.

4.

The writ petition thus suffers from delay laches and is therefore rejected on the said ground of delay laches itself. Sd/- (P. Sam Koshy) Judge Ved