Gobind Chandra Barman v. State Of Chhattisgarh

NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 2841 of 2018 Gobind Chandra Barman S/o Late Sudhanya Chandra Barman Aged About 57 Years R/o Qr. No. 5-A, Street No. 71 Sector-6, Bhilai, DistrictDurg, Chhattisgarh. ---- Petitioner

Versus

1.

State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of Revenue, Mantralaya, Naya Raipur, District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 2.

Collector-Cum-Officiating Dy Secretary (In Land Acquisition Matter), Raipur, District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 3.

SDO-Cum-Land Acquisition Aarang-Abhanpur, District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh 4.

Tahsildar Aarang, District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 5.

Chief Executive Engineer Naya Raipur Development Authority (NRDA) Govind Sarang Parisar, 2nd Floor, New Rajendra Nagar, Sector-7, Raipur, District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh. ---- Respondents For Petitioner :

Mr. Sanjay Kumar, Advocate For State :

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

For Respondent No.5 :

Mr. Anumeh Shrivastava, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice P. Sam Koshy Order on Board 05/10/2020 1.

The grievance of the petitioner in the present writ petition is that the property belonging to the petitioner's family bearing Khasra No. 1040, measuring 0.356 hectare at village Baraud, Patwari Halka No. 62, Block & Tehsil Aarang, District Raipur was acquired by the respondent No.3 for respondent No.5. The award under the Land Acquisition Act was passed as early as on 31.05.2013 but till date the petitioner or his family members have not received

any compensation amount against the said acquisition of their family property.

2.

According to the petitioner, he should now also be paid interest on the said amount.

3.

Considering the fact that there is already an award passed on 31.05.2013, the writ petition at this juncture stands disposed of directing the respondent No.3 to ensure that compensation amount payable to the petitioner if it has not been released till now is released in accordance with law at the earliest preferably within a period of 60 days.

4.

As regards the claim of interest on the delayed payment of compensation, the petitioner would have to move an appropriate application before the respondent No.3, who, in turn, shall decide the same in accordance with law as to whether the petitioner would be entitled for interest or not, which would always be subject to challenge by the petitioner, if still aggrieved. 5.

The writ petition accordingly stands disposed of. Sd/- (P. Sam Koshy) Judge Ved