1 - Saurabh Singh Sisodiya S/o Late Yogendra Pal Singh Aged About 43 Years v. 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through - The Secretary, Revenue And Disaster Management, Mahanadi
Case Details
1 VISHAKHA BEOHAR Digitally signed by VISHAKHA BEOHAR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR NAFR WPC No. 1213 of 2025 1 - Saurabh Singh Sisodiya S/o Late Yogendra Pal Singh Aged About 43 Years R/o Apollo Hospital Road, In Front Of Primary Health Centre Lingiyadih, District - Bilaspur (C.G.) --- Petitioner versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through - The Secretary, Revenue And Disaster Management, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Atal Nagar, Raipur (C.G.) 2 - Collector Janjgir, District Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) 3 - Land Acquisition Officer-Cum-Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue) Janjgir, District Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) 4 - Managing Director Chhattisgarh State Industrial Development Corporation, Udyog Bhawan, Telibandha, District - Raipur (C.G.) 5 - Managing Director District Trade And Indusrty Center, Champa, District Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) 6 - Managing Director K.S.K. Mahanadi Power, Nariyara, Akaltara, District Janjgir-Champa (C.G) --- Respondents WPC No. 1401 of 2025 1 - Lokesh Kumar Singh S/o Lt. Yogendra Pal Singh Aged About 45 Years R/o B-103, Salasar Green, Sarona, Raipur, District- Raipur (C.G.) --- Petitioner versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through - The Secretary, Revenue And Disaster Management, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Atal Nagar, 2 Raipur (C.G.) 2 - Collector Janjgir, District- Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) 3 - Land Acquisition Officer-Cum-Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue) Janjgir, District Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) 4 - Managing Director Chhattisgarh State Industrial Development Corporation, Udyog Bhawan, Telibandha, District- Raipur (C.G.) 5 - Managing Director District Trade And Industry Center Champa, District Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) 6 - Managing Director K.S.K. Mahanadi Power, Nariyara, Akaltara, District Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) ... Respondents (Cause title taken from Case Information System) For Petitioners For State
Legal Reasoning
: Mr. Tapan Kumar Chandra, Advocate. Mr. Shreyansh Mehta, Panel Lawyer : For Respondent : Mr. Anumeh Shrivastava, Advocate No.4 17.03.2025 Hon’ble Shri Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Order on Board 1. These two separate writ petitions are filed by real brothers and both of them are seeking similar reliefs, therefore, in order to decide the same, they are being clubbed together, heard together and are being decided by this common order. 2. According to the petitioners, both of them are the joint owner of land bearing Khasra No. 276/1 & Khasra No. 276/3 admeasuring area 11 & 10 Acre respectively situated at village Rogda, Tahsil Akaltara, District Janjgir-Champa (C.G.). From the total portion of the aforesaid land, 6 acre of land in Khasra No. 276/1 and 5 acre of land in Khasra No. 276/3 has been acquired in the year 2010- 3 11 for the purpose of Industrial Development project. After the acquisition process, the land has been transferred to the private respondent No. 6 i.e. KSK Mahanadi Power, Nariyara, Akaltara, District Janjgir Champa and the respondent No. 6 encroached upon some extra land of the petitioner while constructing boundary wall on the said premise. 3. Since, both the petitions are identical in nature and have been filed by the joint owners, as such, for the sake of brevity, the reliefs sought by the petitioner in WPC No.1213/2025 (Saurabh Singh Sisodiya vs. State of Chhattisgarh & Others) has been taken into consideration which are quoted hereinbelow:- “10.1 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct respondent-authorities for payment against the actual area of the land was taken possession by the respondent No. 6. 10.2 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct respondent-authorities to consider and decide the representation within stipulated time. 10.3 Any other relief/ order may also be granted that may be deemed fit and just in the facts and circumstances of the case.” 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners are joint owners of land bearing Khasra No. 276/1 & 276/3 admeasuring area 11 & 10 Acre respectively situated at village Rogda, Tahsil Akaltara, District Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) and out of 4 which, 6 acres of land in Khasra No. 276/1 and 5 acres of land in Khasra No. 276/3 has been acquired in the year 2010-11 for the purpose of Industrial Development project and after the acquisition process, the land has been transfer to the private respondent No. 6. It is stated that the compensation was paid to both the petitioners and the possession of the land was handed over to the respondent No.6 for which the land was acquired. He submits that subsequently, at the time of raising boundary wall on the said land, the respondent No.6 has encroached some more part of land of the petitioners for which compensation was not granted to them, as such, the petitioners have prayed for the aforesaid reliefs. It is further submitted that the petitioners have also filed representation to the concerned respondent authorities for redressal of their grievance, but the same has not been decided till date. 5. On the other hand, learned State counsel vehemently opposes the submission made by learned counsel for the petitioners and submits that the award has been passed in respect of the total land of the petitioners acquired by the respondents and the compensation has been paid to them. It is also stated that the said portion of the land acquired has been handed over to the respondent No. 6, as such, the State is not responsible for the reliefs as claimed by the petitioners in these petitions. 6. I have heard learned counsel for parties and perused the
Decision
documents appended with all the writ petitions. 7. In the preliminary stage, after going through the reliefs claimed by 5 the petitioners, it seems that some portion of the land has been perhaps encroached by the respondent No. 6 for which the petitioners are seeking those reliefs including payment regarding handing over of possession of the land encroached by the respondent No. 6 and also to decide the representation filed by the petitioners. After going through the reliefs claimed by the petitioners, this Court is of the considered opinion that the dispute as raised by the petitioners cannot be resolved by invoking extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The petitions as framed by the petitioners and the reliefs sought by them can be availed before the competent Civil and Revenue Court and the petitioners should have approached before the competent Revenue Court as well as concerned Civil jurisdictional Court for redressal of their grievance and as such, the present petitions seem to be not maintainable. 8. In view of the aforementioned discussion, the present petitions, being devoid of merits, are hereby dismissed. No order as to cost(s). Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Vishakha