Naresh Yadav v. State Of Chhattisgarh

:- Mr. Ramesh Nayak & Mr. Meghraj For State :- Mr. Amit Nayak, P.L. Dewangan, Advocates ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- SB- Hon'ble Shri Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Order On Board

21.07.2026

Following reliefs have been prayed by way of this petition:- “10.1. That, the Hon'ble High Court may kindly be pleased to call for the entire records pertaining to the case of the petitioner for its kind perusal.

10.

That, the Hon'ble High Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent authorities to provide the compensation to the petitioners under the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act

10.3 That, the Hon'ble High Court may kindly be pleased to stay the construction of road over the petitioners land without providing them compensation under the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act

2013. 3

10.4 That, any other relief, this Hon'ble Court deem fit and proper may also be granted to the petitioner, in the interest of justice.”

2. Facts of the case, in brief, are that the petitioner is the recorded owner of land bearing Khasra No. 67/5 situated at Village Sukalipali, Tahsil Adbhar, District Sakti. It is the case of the petitioner that the respondent authorities, while widening the Sakarra–Bhothiya road, have utilized a portion of the petitioner’s land without acquiring the same in accordance with law and without payment of compensation. The petitioner had earlier submitted representations before the concerned authorities, however, no effective action has been taken.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the action of the respondents in utilizing the land without acquisition and without payment of compensation is arbitrary and violative of constitutional rights. It is further submitted that despite repeated representations, the authorities have failed to take any decision. Reliance has also been placed on an order passed by this Court in a similar matter wherein directions were issued to the Collector to consider the claim of compensation.

Learned State counsel, on the other hand, submits that appropriate instructions shall be obtained in the matter and the grievance of the petitioner can be examined by the competent authority in accordance with law. 4

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record.

Upon perusal of the record, this Court finds that though the right to property is no longer a fundamental right, it continues to be a constitutional right under Article 300A of the Constitution of India. Therefore, no person can be deprived of his property save by authority of law and without following due process, including payment of compensation. In the present case, the limited grievance of the petitioner is that his land has been utilized for widening of the Sakarra–Bhothiya road without acquisition and without compensation. Such a grievance requires factual verification, particularly with regard to demarcation of the land and the extent of utilization, which can appropriately be undertaken by the competent revenue authorities.

With the aforesaid observations and directions, the writ petition stands disposed of.

No order as to costs. sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Vishakha