Dismissed

Vijay Kumar Tripathi v. Union of India

Chhattisgarh HC8 Jul 2022WPC/2684/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this writ petition regarding non-release of land compensation under the National Highways Act, 1956, the Court observed that the petitioner had not approached the officer for release of deposited funds. The petition was disposed of with directions to file an application before the responsible officer.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition disposed of; directed petitioner to approach Respondent No.4; Respondent No.4 to conclude proceedings within four months of application.

Vijay Kumar Tripathi Vs Union of India — Land Acquisition | Chhattisgarh HC (2022)

¶1

-1-

¶2

NAFR

¶3

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶4

Writ Petition (C) No. 2684 of 2022

¶5

1. Vijay Kumar Tripathi S/o Shri Vasudev Prasad Tripathi Aged About 40 Years R/o House No. 18, Shriram Residency, Mangla Road, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh.

¶6

---Petitioner(s)

¶7

Versus

¶8

1. Union of India Through Ministry of Road, Surface Transport and Highways, Through Its Secretary, Transport Bhawan 1, Sansad Marg, New Delhi 110001.

¶9

2. National Highway Authority Through Its Project Director, National Highway Authority , Bilaspur , Project Execution Unit Abhilasha Parisar, Tifra , Bilaspur , District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh.

¶10

3. Collector Bilaspur, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh.

¶11

4. Prescribed Officer Cum Land Acquisition Officer (SDO Revenue) Bilaspur, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh.

¶12

---Respondents

¶13

For Petitioner	:	Shri Manish Nigam, Advocate.
For Respondent No.1	:	Shri Ramakant Mishra, ASG.
For Respondent/State	:	Ms. Akanksha Jain, Dy. Govt. Advocate
		alongwith Shri Aditya Tiwari,Panel Lawyer.

¶14

Hon'ble Shri Justice P. Sam Koshy Order on Board

¶15

08.07.2022

¶16

1. Aggrieved by the inaction on the part of the respondents in not releasing

¶17

the payment of compensation against the land belonging to the petitioner which stood acquired under the provisions of the National Highways Act, 1956 (in short, the Act of 1956), the instant writ petition has been filed.

¶18

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the acquisition proceeding has since attained finality. The award passed under the Act of 1956 has been honoured and the entire amount stands deposited by the National Highway Authority before the Land Acquisition Officer and the amount is since pending with the respondent No.4 for disbursement.

¶19

3. Perusal of pleadings would show that the petitioner does not seem to have approached the respondent No.4 for the release of the said amount.

¶20

-2-

¶21

4. Given the said facts, the writ petition as of now stands disposed of directing the petitioner to approach the respondent No.4 for release of the amount of compensation which stands deposited against the property belonging to the petitioner which stood acquired. Upon an application being made by the petitioner, the respondent No.4, after due verification, scrutiny and enquiry, as is required, shall conclude the proceedings within an outer limit of four months from the date the petitioner makes application.

¶22

5. The writ petition accordingly stands disposed of.

¶23

Sd/(P. Sam Koshy) Judge

¶24

inder

Vijay Kumar Tripathi v. Union of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vijay Kumar Tripathi v. Union of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Bank of Baroda Vs Municipal Corporation Bhilai

Ram Avatar Suryavanshi Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Neelam Devi Vs Union of India

Smt. Deepmala Manhar Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Satpal Singh Saluja Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Veer Projects, Engineers and Contractor Vs State of Chhattisgarh