Nafr High Court
Case Details
YOGESH TIWARI Digitally signed by YOGESH TIWARI Date: 2025.04.16 15:15:37 +0530 1 2025:CGHC:17165 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 4020 of 2022 Narmada Prasad Jaiswal S/o Paragi Aged About 62 Years R/o Ward No. 9, Village Beltara,, District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh versus ... Petitioner 1 - National Highway Authority Of India Through Project Director National Highway Authority Of India (Pendridih-Pathrapali Road), Project Implementation Unit, Bilaspur,, District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh 2 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary Revenue Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, Nava Raipur,, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 3 - The Collector, Bilaspur,, District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh 4 - Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue) Cum Prescribed Authority Land Acquisition, Bilaspur,, District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) ... Respondents For Petitioner
Legal Reasoning
: Mr. Nikhil Wadhwani, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Rajbahadur Singh, Advocate For Respondent No.1 : Mr. Aniruddh Singh, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Dhiraj Kumar Wankhede, Advocate For Respondents No.2 to 4 : Mr. Santosh Bharat, Panel Lawyer 2 Hon’ble Shri Amitendra Kishore Prasad, Judge 15.04.2025 Order on Board 1 Heard Mr. Nikhil Wadhwani, learned counsel holding brief of Mr. Rajbahadur Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Aniruddh Singh, learned counsel holding brief of Mr. Dhiraj Kumar Wankhede, learned counsel for respondent No.1 as well as Mr. Santosh Bharat, learned Panel Lawyer appearing for State/respondents No.2 to 4. 2 The instant petition is preferred by the petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution with the following relief(s):- “10.1 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to set-aside the impugned notice dated 30.07.2022 (Annexure P/1) passed by the respondent no. 4 and the respondent may kindly be directed not to demolished the newly constructed shops and house of the petitioner. 10.2 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent to duly demarked the remaining land of the petitioner and after demarcation they will proceed further as per the provisions of land acquisition. 3 10.3 That, any other relief which this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper may also kindly be granted to the petitioner in the interest of justice along with cost of the petition.” 3 It has been submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is the registered owner of the land bearing Khasra No. 1415, Rakba 0.0930 hectare (23 dismil) which is situated at Village Beltara, Distt. Bilaspur (C.G.). In the year 2018-2019, from the total land of the petitioner i.e. 0.0930 hectare (23 dismil), 0.0450 hectare (11 dismil) land was duly acquired by the respondent No. 1 for the purpose of widening of the road (Pendridih-Pathrapali Road) and the petitioner has received compensation from the authority. The respondents authorities have acquired the land of the petitioner after demolishing some portion of the old house and shops of the petitioner, thereafter the road was constructed by the authorities and after completion of the road, the petitioner has duly constructed his new shops and house in remaining part of his land. He further submits that surprisingly on 30.07.2022, respondent No. 4 has issued a notice in illegal manner stating that after receiving the compensation amount of the land of the petitioner, he has not vacated the possession and he was directed to vacate the land within the period of 7 days otherwise Government will forcefully vacate the land and after receiving the notice, the petitioner immediately on 08.08.2022 went before respondent No. 4 and raised his written 4 objection, but respondent No. 4 has refused to take his written objection. On 08.09.2022, the respondent authorities have reached along with their team at the house of the petitioner and trying to forcefully demolish the newly constructed shop and house of the petitioner, but due to the objection of the petitioner, they returned back after preparing the Panchnama, but there is much possibility to forcefully demolishing the newly constructed shops and house of the petitioner in near future by the respondent authorities. Hence, the petitioner may be permitted to file appropriate application before the respondent authorities and in turn, the respondent authorities be directed to decide the application of the petitioner within a considerable time frame. 4 On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for respondents submit that from perusal of the notice dated 30.07.2022, it seems that the petitioner has again encroached upon the land, for which, he has already been compensated. 5 I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the
Decision
documents annexed with the writ petition. 6 Perusal of the record would show that when the matter was called out for hearing on 22.08.2023, the following order has been passed :- “Mr. Rajbahadur Singh, Advocate for the petitioner. 5 Mr. Raghvendra Pradhan, Additional Advocate General for State. Mr. Prasun Kumar Bhaduri, Advocate for respondent No.1. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the demarcation which is done subsequent to filing of the writ petition itself mentions, that the area of the land recorded in the name of petitioner is 0.930 hectares whereas in the map of the Revenue Officer, the area is recorded as 0.073 hectares. There is some error in making the map by the Revenue Officer. Learned State counsel submits that he may be granted time to file reply. As prayed, list this case in the week commencing 11.09.2023.” 7 Be that as it may, the petitioner is directed to file an application/representation before the authorities concerned along with relevant documents within a period of 15 days from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order along with a copy of the map to be obtained by the concerned officer and in turn, the concerned respondent authorities are directed to consider the 6 application/representation filed by the petitioner within a period of 45 days from the date of filing of the representation/application, in accordance with law while considering the order dated 22.08.2023. 8 It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion into the merits of the case and the authorities are at liberty to pass appropriate order in accordance with law. 9 With the aforesaid observation/direction, the writ petition stands disposed of. Yogesh Sd/- Sd/- - (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge