Jailal v. State Of Chhattisgarh

NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No.

1. Jailal S/o Shri Kirti Ram Patel Aged About 51 Years

2. Vishnu Patel S/o Shri Kirti Ram Patel Aged About 58 Years

3. Ishwari Lal S/o Shri Khushi Ram Aged About 52 Years All are R/o Village Chaple, Tahsil And Police Station Kharsia, District Raigarh, Chhattisgarh.

---- Petitioners

Versus

1. State Of Chhattisgarh, Through The Secretary, Energy Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, Capital Complex, Mantralaya, Naya Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh

2. Powergrid Corporation Of India Ltd. Office- Kutub Institutional Area, Katwaria Saray, New Delhi.

3. Managing Director, Chhattisgarh State Electricity Production/ Transmission/ Distribution Company Maryadit, Danganiya, Raipur.

4. Executive Director Power Grid Corporation Ltd., C.S.I.D.C. Commercial Complex Ring Road No.1, Mahadev Ghat Road, Raipur, Chhattisgarh.

5. The Chief Engineer Power Grid Corporation Of India Ltd., (EHTConstruction), Sub Division CSP Transmission Company Ltd. Raigarh, District Raigarh, Chhattisgarh.

6. Collector Raigarh, District Raigarh, Chhattisgarh.

7. Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue) Sub Division- Kharsia, District Raigarh, Chhattisgarh.

---- Respondents For Petitioner :

Mr. Jeet Patel, Advocate For State :

Ms. Abhyunnati Singh, P.L.

Hon'ble Shri Justice P. Sam Koshy Order on Board 06/11/2019

1. The limited prayer that the petitioner has made is for an appropriate direction to the respondent No.7 to consider and decide the objection that the petitioner has filed on 30.05.2019. Before issuing the final compensation sheet regarding the erection and installation of the High Tension Electricity Power Supply Transmission Tower.

2. The contention of the petitioner is that the land belonging to the petitioner is being acquired by the respondents for installation of High Tension Electricity Power Supply Transmission Tower between village Masaniyakala to Rengalpali. According to the petitioner, they are required to be paid proper compensation on the market value of the land, to which the respondents have published a compensation sheet on 25.05.2019 and 31.05.2019. According to the petitioner, they have already raised an objection in respect of the compensation amount quantified and have sought for enhancement of the compensation as entire land of the petitioner has become useless for agriculture purposes on account of the erection of the transmission tower. The said objection is still pending consideration before the respondent No.7.

3. Given the aforesaid facts, let the concerned authorities consider the objection that the petitioner has made on 30.05.2019 (Annexure P/3) at the earliest preferably within a period of 45 days from the date of receipt of the copy of this order.

4. With the aforesaid observations, the present writ petition stands disposed of.

Sd/- (P. Sam Koshy) Judge Ved