Disposed

Chandraprabha Kedia v. State Of Chhattisgarh And Ors.

Chhattisgarh HC7 Jul 2014WPC/1218/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition, the petitioner challenged the respondents' proposal to acquire her land and demolish her house for a railway overbridge. She alleged failure to offer compensation or seek agreement. The single judge disposed of the petition at the interlocutory stage with a direction to the authorities to offer compensation or removal action if encroachment is found, before taking possession of

What did the court decide?

Petition disposed with a direction to respondent authorities to offer compensation or initiate proper acquisition before taking land by force.

Chandraprabha Kedia Vs State Of Chhattisgarh And Ors. — Land Acquisition | Chhattisgarh HC (2014)

¶1

BEFORE THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶2

WRIT PETITION (C) No. Iv/x^V83 /2014 WHWW‘

¶3

PETITIONER :

¶4

Chandraprabha Kedia W/o Shri Rajendra Kumar Kedia, Aged about years,^{R/oC-32,Sector~1,Devendra} Nagar, Raipur, P.S.-Devendra Nagar, Distt- Raipur(C.G.)

¶5

VERSUS

¶6

RESPONDENT No.1 : State of Chhattisgarh, Through: The Secretary, Government of Chhattisgarh, Public Works Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Naya Raipur, Chhattisgarh

¶7

RESPONDENT No.2 : The Engineer-in-Chief, Public Works Department, Government of Chhattisgarh, Raipur, Chhattisgarh

¶8

RESPONDENT No.3

¶9

: The Collector, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh

¶10

RESPONDENT No.4

¶11

: The Chief Engineer, Bridge Construction Division, Public Works Department, Raipur, Chhattisgarh

¶12

WRIT UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA FOR ISSUANCE OF APPROPRIATE WRIT IN THE NATURE OF, MANDAMUS, CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER WRITIWRITS OR ORDERIORDERS OR DIRECTION OR DIRECTIONS OF THE LIKE

¶13

The petitioner state as under:

¶14

¶15

PARTICULARS OF THE PETITIONER:

¶16

The petitioner is citizen of India and her fundamental rights are governed by postulates of Chapter III of the Constitution

¶17

3w mam. 1mm? fama$

¶18

QWE’”H‘ EWW

by”? (a) m‘wa/W m 2“

mm^«w;-

Mwfwia;

I wmfmh uwaf^I‘i w Wen é? afar: wk" SB : Hon’ble Shri^{ManindraMohanShrivastava,J.} 07-07-14 Shri Kishore Bhaduri,^{counselforthe} petitioner/s Shri Arun Sao, Dy. Adv General along with Shri Siddhanh Rathore, G.A. for the^State. Heard. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner on the averment that the petitioner^is waving her own house^{constructedon} the land owned^bythe petitioner.^{Therespondentsare} proceeding^to construct a railway ove' bridge over Raipur—Titlagarha Vishakhapatnam railroad at 4/10 Kms. The authorities of the respondents have started m asuring the area proposed to be included for construction of OB and a part of the land and / or house owned by the petitioner^{hasalsobeenmarkedtobeincluded} for the purposes of constructon of ROB. However, till date, the respondents have not acquir d the land of the petitioner nor any compensation has been off ed to seek petitioner’s agreement. According to learned counsel r the petitioner, the petitioner^hasnot encroached upon any Gover ment land or public^road nor it is a case where petitioner has e ceeded beyond her own land. He submits that apprehending^de olition, without taking recourse^tolaw, the petitioner has approached his Court. Learned Dy. Advocate eneral for the State submits^thatthe apprehension of the petitioner^is not^wellfounded. He submits that if

¶23

ya^21mm. mimg. mow$

¶24

nmw Jam

¶25

tar (z)^{W).)€"2‘%'ZZ%=L}

¶26

¶27

MW‘WL'

¶28

. I m???	<br> ‘ I mm ^m, ,Q ‘	$mf5m§w um’amfahfmgv; M > $3§mma¥l
	for the purposes ^{of constructior;} by the petitioner ^isproposed ^to only in accordance ^{with iaw, ei} petitioner ^{or in the absence of} / house in accordance ^{with law.} that such compensation ^would the petitioner has not encroa road or beyond the ^{land and}pr Considering the ^submis parties, the writ petition can direction that if the respondent of the petitioner ^{for the purpo} open for the respondent ^autho absence of any agreement, ^by force. lt is however made respondents to take appro encroachment if it is found that Government land or unoccupi the land owned by ^thepetition The petition ^is accordingl e	^{of ROB, any land or building owned} ^{be required, the same shall be taken} ^{her by way of an agreement with the} ny agreement, by ^{acquisition of land} Learned State counsel ^{also submits} e paid to the petitioner, provided ^that hed upon Government land, public perty ^{standing in her title.} ion of learned counsel ^{for respective} e disposed off at this stage with a authorities ^{require the land} / building es of construction of ROB, it will be ^{ities to offer compensation} or in the proper ^{acquisition, applicable and} in ear that it will be open for the riate action towards removal of any ^{construction on any}public ^road, d land is made beyond the limits of finally disposed ^off. .

¶29

Deeptl

Chandraprabha Kedia v. State Of Chhattisgarh And Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Chandraprabha Kedia v. State Of Chhattisgarh And Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Chandan Das and Ors. Vs State of Chhattisgarh and Ors.

Manik Mandal and Ors. Vs State of Chhattisgarh and Ors.

S.K. Shrivastava Vs State Information Commissioner andORS

Santosh Kumar Chaudhari Vs The State Of Chhattisgarh and Ors.

Vipin Agrawal Vs State Of Chhattisgarh And Ors.

Gopal Krishna Agrawal Vs State Of Chhattisgarh And Ors.