Nafr High Court
Case Details
1 2025:CGHC:44861 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR REKHA SINGH WPC No. 978 of 2014 1 - Mastram Yadav S/o Vishal Yadav Aged About 50 Years R/o Village Kotrabhata, Post Palaud, Ps Mandir Hasoud, Tah Aarang, Distt Raipur, Cg, Chhattisgarh 2 - Awadhram Yadav S/o Kishlal Yadav Aged About 40 Years Through Secretary, Department Of Housing And Environment, Mantralaya, Naya Raipur, Dist Raipur, Cg, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 3 - Govardhan Kurre S/o Asharam Satnami Aged About 79 Years R/o Village Kotrabhata, Post Palaud, Ps Mandir Hasoud, Tah Aarang, Distt Raipur, Cg, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 4 - Sukchand (Died And Deleted) As Per Honble Court Order Dated 28-02- 2024 4.1 - A. Shanti Banjare W/o Late Sukchand Aged About 53 Years R/o Village Kotrabhata, Tahsil Arang Dist. Raipur, C.G. 4.2 - B. Usha Ghritlahre D/o Late Sukchand R/o Village Kotrabhata, Tahsil Arang Dist. Raipur, C.G. 4.3 - C. Omprakash Banjare S/o Late Sukchand R/o Village Kotrabhata, Tahsil Arang Dist. Raipur, C.G. 4.4 - D. Roshan Banjare S/o Late Sukchand R/o Village Kotrabhata, Tahsil Arang Dist. Raipur, C.G. 4.5 - E. Simran Banjare D/o Late Sukchand R/o Village Kotrabhata, Tahsil Arang Dist. Raipur, C.G. 5 - Sheeshpal S/o Prem Banjare Aged About 42 Years R/o Village Kotrabhata, Post Palaud, Ps Mandir Hasoud, Tah Aarang, Distt Raipur, Cg, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 6 - Lata Yadav D/o Sakharam Yadav Aged About 30 Years R/o Village Kotrabhata, Post Palaud, Ps Mandir Hasoud, Tah Aarang, Distt Raipur, Cg, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 7 - Sakharam Yadav S/o Jagatram Yadav Aged About 58 Years R/o Village Kotrabhata, Post Palaud, Ps Mandir Hasoud, Tah Aarang, Distt Raipur, Cg, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 8 - Sudama Yadav S/o Sakharam Yadav Aged About 32 Years R/o Village -2- Kotrabhata, Post Palaud, Ps Mandir Hasoud, Tah Aarang, Distt Raipur, Cg, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 9 - Devsingh Yadav S/o Phiranta Yadav Aged About 45 Years R/o Village Kotrabhata, Post Palaud, Ps Mandir Hasoud, Tah Aarang, Distt Raipur, Cg, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 10 - Santrabai D/o Mayaram Satnami Aged About 64 Years R/o Village Kotrabhata, Post Palaud, Ps Mandir Hasoud, Tah Aarang, Distt Raipur, Cg, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 11 - Santosh Yadav S/o Jaipal Yadav Aged About 35 Years R/o Village Kotrabhata, Post Palaud, Ps Mandir Hasoud, Tah Aarang, Distt Raipur, Cg, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 12 - Manharan S/o Manglu Pal Aged About 55 Years R/o Village Kotrabhata, Post Palaud, Ps Mandir Hasoud, Tah Aarang, Distt Raipur, Cg, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 13 - Ramesh Pal S/o Lt Manthir Pal Aged About 28 Years R/o Village Kotrabhata, Post Palaud, Ps Mandir Hasoud, Tah Aarang, Distt Raipur, Cg, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 14 - Santuram (Died And Deleted) As Per Honble Court Order Dated 28-02- 2024 14.1 - A. Belabai W/o Late Santuram R/o Village Kotrabhata, Tahsil Arang Dist. Raipur, C.G. 14.2 - B. Nathela S/o Late Santuram R/o Village Kotrabhata, Tahsil Arang Dist. Raipur, C.G. 14.3 - C. Pardeshi S/o Late Santuram R/o Village Kotrabhata, Tahsil Arang Dist. Raipur, C.G. 14.4 - D. Parvati D/o Late Santuram R/o Village Kotrabhata, Tahsil Arang Dist. Raipur, C.G. 14.5 - E. Parbatia D/o Late Santuram R/o Village Kotrabhata, Tahsil Arang Dist. Raipur, C.G. 14.6 - F Paraga Late Santuram R/o Village Kotrabhata, Tahsil Arang Dist. Raipur, C.G. 14.7 - G Hemin D/o Late Santuram R/o Village Kotrabhata, Tahsil Arang Dist. Raipur, C.G. 15 - Puneet Ram Banjare S/o Ganpat Aged About 60 Years R/o Village Kotrabhata, Post Palaud, Ps Mandir Hasoud, Tah Aarang, Distt Raipur, Cg, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Department Of Housing And Environment, Mantralaya,naya Raipur, Dist Raipur, Cg, Chhattisgarh 3 2 - District Collector, Collectorate, Raipur, Distt Raipur, Cg, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 3 - Naya Raipur Development Authority, Throuth Its Chief Executive Officer,new Rajendra Nagar, In Front Of Vijeta Complex, R.D.A. Building, Raipur, Dist Raipur, Cg, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 4 - Land Acquisition Officer/ Sub Divisional Officer, Tah Aarang- Abhanpur, Distt Raipur, Cg, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh ---- Respondents For Petitioners For State For respondent No.3
Legal Reasoning
: Ms. Aditi Singhvi, Advocate : Mr.Rajkumar Gupta, Additional A.G. : Mr. Animesh Verma, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 03.09.2025 1. The petitioners have filed this petition seeking the following relief(s) : “i) Call for records of the proceedings whereby the Naya Raipur Development Plan was published/notified under the Chhattisgarh Nagar Tatha Gram Nivesh Adhiniyam, 1973 thereby including the entire village of the Petitioners Village Kotrabhata without adequate information, participation and consultation. ii) Quash the Orders dated 28.07.2011 and 30.07.2011 passed in Revenue Case No. 16/A/82/Year 2010-11 whereby emergency provisions under Section 17 of the LA Act were invoked on the recommendation of the Respondent NRDA without adequate reason thus invalidating the entire acquisition proceedings arising out of the same. iii) Quash the Notification under Section 4(1) r/w Section 17(1) Annexure P/11. which held that the provisions of Section 5A would not be applicable without any specific opinion/order by the Collector to this effect, which does not reveal any specific public purpose, and regarding which no public proclamation has been made in the affected village of the Petitioners. iv) Quash the Notification issued under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act in Revenue Case No. 16A/82/Year 2010-11 issued without consideration of the serious objections raised by the Petitioners and other villagers of Village Kotrabhata. v) Quash the Award which is falsely premised on the fact that no objections were filed by the land owners and regarding which no Notice was issued under Section 12 of the Land Acquisition Act. vi) Direct the Respondent State to modify the development plan in respect to the village Kotrabhata after providing proper opportunity of hearing and consultation with the villagers of Village Kotrabhata. vii) Grant any other relief which this Hon'ble Court may deem just and fit in the circumstances of the case.” -4- 2. Ms. Dangi, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would submit that the lands of the petitioners were acquired by respondent No.1 on request of respondent No.3 and an award was passed on 31.08.2012. She would further submit that according to the Rehabilitation Policy dated 28.02.2006, the petitioners are entitled for various benefits including developed plots but till date, those benefits have not been extended to the petitioners. She would contend that in the return filed by the State and adopted by respondent No.3, particularly in para 48, it is pleaded that the State has carved various rehabilitation policy in favour of land oustees. She would further contend that a direction may be issued to the respondent authorities to consider the claims of the petitioners with regard to benefits included in the Rehabilitation Policy expeditiously within stipulated time. In support of her contentions, she placed reliance on the judgment passed by the Coordinate Bench in the matter of Ku. Rattho Bai and Anr. Vs. South Eastern Coalfield Limited and Ors. passed in WPS 432 of 2011, decided on 23.07.2015. 3. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the State as well as counsel appearing for respondent No.3 would oppose the submissions made by Ms. Dangi. They would submit that though the Rehabilitation Scheme has been carved out but State has to examine as to whether the petitioners are entitled or not. 4. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the documents placed on record. 5. In the matter of Ku. Rattho Bai (supra), the Coordinate Bench has held that the Policy issued by the SECL does not have any statutory force whereas, the Rehabilitation Policy issued by the State has been issued for and on behalf of the Governor. The Rehabilitation Policy 5 issued by the State Government would prevail upon the Policy of the SECL. Relevant para 7 is reproduced herein below : "(7) The policy issued by the SECL in the year 2002 makes such provisions, however, a reading of the Policy would indicate that the said policy does not have any statutory force, whereas, the Rehabilitation Policy issued by the State of Madhya Pradesh has been issued for and on behalf of the Governor of Madhya Pradesh. Since there is no legislation covering the said field, the Policy has statutory backing in terms of Article 166 of the Constitution of India. Thus, the Rehabilitation Policy issued by the State Government would prevail upon the Policy of the SECL.” 6. Considering the submissions made by the respective advocates and the judgment passed by the Coordinate Bench in the matter of Ku. Rattho Bai (supra), this petition at this juncture is disposed of reserving liberty in favour of the petitioners to make representation(s) before respondents No.1 & 3 within a period of 30 days from today and in turn, respondents No.1 & 3 are directed to decide the representation(s) so made by the petitioners strictly in accordance with the Rehabilitation Policy dated 28.02.2006 preferably within a further period of 90 days from today. 7. With the aforesaid observation(s)/direction(s), the present petition is
Decision
disposed of. Rekha Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge