Disposed

Vipin Agrawal v. State Of Chhattisgarh And Ors.

Chhattisgarh HC7 Jul 2014WPC/1223/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition under Article 226, the High Court of Chhattisgarh disposed of an appeal regarding construction of a railway bridge. The petitioner claimed his land was obstructed without compensation. The Court directed authorities to offer compensation or acquire the land if needed, but allowed removal of structures if the land was proven to be public or Government property.

What did the court decide?

Directing the State to offer compensation or acquire land for construction; alternatively, removing petitioner's structure if land is public/Government land.

Vipin Agrawal Vs State Of Chhattisgarh And Ors. — Land Acquisition | Chhattisgarh HC (2014)

¶1

BEFORE THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR 7 a WRIT PETITION c No. {\WK‘) 2014

¶2

PETITIONER Vipin Agrawal S/o Late Shri Kailash ~ Chandra Agrawal, Aged about 45 “ y years, R/o R-ll, Anupam Nagar, Raipur Distt- Raipur(C.G.)

¶3

VERSUS

¶4

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

¶5

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

¶6

RESPONDENT NO.3

¶7

The Collector, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh

¶8

RESPONDENT NO.4

¶9

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

¶10

WRIT UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA FOR ISSUANCE OF APPROPRIATE WRIT IN THE NATURE OF, MANDAMUS, CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER WRIT/WRITS OR ORDER/ORDERS OR DIRECTION OR DIRECTIONS OF THE LIKE

¶11

The petitioner state as under:

¶12

1. PARTICULARS OF THE PETITIONER:

¶13

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

3a^:amm. Mimi. ham$

Q) /

mmwqm}

mmmm . _ . SB : Hon’ble Shri Manindra F 07-07-14 Shri Kishore Bhaduri, COL Shri Arun Sao, Dy. Adv.% Rathore, G.A. for the State. Heard.	wufmh $Wwam umv‘i ⁱⁱwmn lnohan Shrivastava, J. nsel for the petitioner/s. General along witH Shri Siddharth
This writ petition has b averment that the petitioner is t the land owned by the petitione construct a railway over Vishakhapatnam railroad at 4 respondents have started me included for construction of R house owned by the petitioner for the purposes of constructi respondents have not acquir compensation has been offer According to learned counsel fo encroached upon any Govern case where petitioner has ex submits that apprehending dem the petitioner has approached th Learned Dy. Advocate G ‘ apprehension of the petitioner is e	een filed by the petitioner on the aving his own house constructed on '. The respondents are proceeding to bridge over Raipur-Titiagarh~ ’10 Kms. The authorities of the suring the area proposed to be B and a part of the land and / or as also been marked to be included n of ROB. However, till date, the the land of the petitioner nor any d to seek petitioner’s agreement. the petitioner, the petitioner has not ent land or public ^road nor it is a eded beyond his own land. He lition, without taking recourse to law, s Court. neral for the State submits that the not well founded. He submits thatif

mmmm
.
_
.
SB
: Hon’ble Shri Manindra F
07-07-14
Shri Kishore Bhaduri, COL
Shri Arun
Sao,
Dy.
Adv.%
Rathore, G.A. for the State.
Heard.

wufmh
$Wwam
umv‘i ⁱⁱwmn
lnohan Shrivastava, J.
nsel for the petitioner/s.
General
along
witH
Shri
Siddharth

This
writ
petition
has
b
averment that the petitioner is t
the land owned by the petitione
construct
a
railway
over
Vishakhapatnam
railroad
at
4
respondents
have
started
me
included
for construction
of R
house owned by the petitioner
for the
purposes
of
constructi
respondents
have
not
acquir
compensation
has
been
offer
According to learned counsel fo
encroached
upon any Govern
case
where
petitioner
has
ex
submits that apprehending dem
the petitioner has approached th
Learned
Dy. Advocate G
‘
apprehension of the petitioner is
e

een
filed
by
the
petitioner
on
the
aving his own house constructed on
'. The respondents are proceeding to
bridge
over
Raipur-Titiagarh~
’10
Kms.
The
authorities
of
the
suring
the
area
proposed
to
be
B
and
a
part
of the
land
and
/ or
as also been marked to be included
n
of ROB.
However,
till
date,
the
the
land
of the
petitioner
nor any
d
to
seek
petitioner’s
agreement.
the petitioner, the petitioner has not
ent
land
or
public ^road
nor
it
is a
eded
beyond
his
own
land.
He
lition, without taking recourse to law,
s Court.
neral for the State submits that the
not well founded.
He submits thatif

¶20

	:g-ea ^:amm‘WWW	Em“? q ^g
	mum vxrm‘ca ‘^Myf (C) ^m0 ‘	)QR$//‘/ a1 20
	mm ‘WT	RW
mn-I fdim WK a	manam aw ’ Q .-	$mhw‘a umii ⁱⁱfa?Ifmw ax aim 311w
Deeptl	for the purposes of construction by the petitioner is proposed to onty in accordance with law, eit petitioner ^{or in the absence}of / house in accordance with iaw. that such compensation would the petitioner has not encroac road or beyond the land and pro Considering the submissi parties, the writ petition can b direction that if the respondent of the petitioner ^{for the}purpos open for the respondent author absence of any agreement, by force. it is however made cl respondents to take approp encroachment if it is found that Government land or unoccupie the land owned by the petitioner. The petition is accordingly	l of ROB, any land or building owned e required, the same shall be taken er 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 red upon Government land, public erty standing in his title. n of learned counsel for respective disposed off at this stage with a uthorities require the land / building s of construction of ROB, it will be ies to offer compensation or in the roper acquisition, applicable and in ar that it will be open for the ate action towards removal of ny construction on any public road, land is made beyond the limits of inaily disposed off. Sdl-

Vipin Agrawal v. State Of Chhattisgarh And Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vipin Agrawal 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.

Chandraprabha Kedia Vs State Of Chhattisgarh And Ors.

Gopal Krishna Agrawal Vs State Of Chhattisgarh And Ors.