Disposed

manikdas Manikpuri v. State of Chhattisgarh

Chhattisgarh HC6 Jul 2023WPC/2702/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner, a village Kotwar, filed a writ petition seeking directions for the payment of compensation for service land transferred to the Naya Raipur Development Authority. The court directed the competent authority to decide the pending compensation application within four months.

What did the court decide?

Directed respondent No.3 to decide the pending application for compensation as early as possible, preferably within four months.

manikdas Manikpuri Vs State of Chhattisgarh — Land Acquisition | Chhattisgarh HC (2023)

¶1

NAFR

¶2

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

¶3

WPC No. 2702 of 2023

¶4

Manikdas Manikpuri S/o Shri Ghanshyam Das Manikpuri, R/o Village Sengh Patwari Halka No. 21, Revenue Inspector Circle Mandir Hasaud, Tahsil Arang, District- Raipur Chhattisgarh

¶5

---- Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

State of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Revenue Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, New Raipur, Distt. Raipur Chhattisgarh

¶8

The Collector District- Raipur Chhattisgarh

¶9

The Chief Executive Officer, Naya Raipur Development Agency, District- Raipur Chhattisgarh

¶10

The Tahsildar, Tahsil- Mandir Hasaud, District- Raipur Chhattisgarh

¶11

The Naib Tahsildar Tahsil- Mandir Hasaud, District- Raipur (CG)

¶12

---- Respondents For Petitioner : Mr. Hemant K Agrawal, Advocate For Respondent-State : Mr. P. Acharya, Panel Lawyer

¶13

SB: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Parth Prateem Sahu

¶14

Order On Board

¶15

06/07/2023

¶16

Learned counsel for petitioner submits that petitioner being village Kotwar was in possession of service land bearing Khasra Nos.30, 203, 233, 356 situated in village Sendh, PH No.31, RI Circle Mandir Hasaud, Tahsil & District Raipur. Land in possession of petitioner was transferred and recorded in the name of Naya Raipur Development Authority vide order dated 16.1.2014 and revenue record was accordingly corrected, which is reflecting from Annexure P-10. It is contention of petitioner that as per order issued by respondent No.3, upon

¶17

acquisition of service land, fixed compensation is to be granted to the Kotwar, but even after lapse of 8 years from the date of acquisition, petitioner has not been paid single penny towards compensation. Petitioner has already submitted application dated 13.10.2014 in this regard before respondent No.3, who is competent authority. A copy of application dated 13.10.2014 which was obtained by petitioner under the Right to Information Act, 2005 is filed along with this writ petition as Annexure P-11. Hence, a direction be issued to respondent No.3 to consider and decide pending application of petitioner within specified time. He also submits that if this Court permits, petitioner will submit fresh application, in addition to pending application, before respondent No.3.

¶18

Learned State Counsel submits that claim of petitioner is against respondent No.3 to whom he is not representing.

¶19

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents annexed along with writ petition.

¶20

Perusal of documents would show that lands of above mentioned khasra numbers were earlier recorded in the name of petitioner. Other revenue documents like kishtbandi khatoni, show that pursuant to order of Collector dated 17.1.2014, land in question was transferred in the name of Naya Raipur Development Authority. Pursuant to order dated 12.1.2010 in WPC No.7524/2019, respondent No.3 has already issued order, which reads thus:-

¶21

Ekkuuh; mPp U;k;ky; fcykliqj ¼N- x-½ ds izdj.k dzekad WPC 7524/2009 dksVokj la?k fo:) Nrrhlx<+ ’kklu ,oa

¶22

vU; 04 es ikfjr vkns’k fnukad 12-01-2010 ds rkjrE; esa u;k jk;iqj {ks= ds dksVokjk a s }kjk izkf/kdkjh ds le{k izLrqr vkosnu ij u;k jk;iqj MsOgyiesaV vFkkWfjVh }kjk NRrhlx<+ Hkw& jktLo lafgrk 1959 ,oa N-x- jkT; iquZokl uhfr 2007 dks /;ku esa j[krs gq, fu.kZ; fy;k tkrk g S fd u;k jk;iqj dh iquZokl ;kstuk esa fo’ks"k vuqxzg jkf’k ;k Hkw[k.M fn;s tkus dk fodYi ds rgr~ ifj;kstuk izHkkfor dksVokj }kjk fodYi izLrqr fd;s tkus ij fo’ks"k vuqxzg jkf’k :i;s 5-00 yk[k izfr gsDVs;j vFkok fu;ekuqlkj Hkw[k.M fn;s tkus dk fopkj u;k jk;iqj MsOgyiesaV vFkkWfjVh }kjk fd;k tkosxkA

¶23

2- dksVokjksa }kjk fodYi izLrwr fd;s tkus ij fu;ekuqlkj dk;Zokgh ew[; dk;Zikyu vf/kdkjh] u;k jk;iqj MsOgyiesaV vFkkWfjVh }kjk dh tkosxhA

¶24

¼v/;{k egksn; }kjk vuqeksfnr½”

¶25

Submission of learned counsel for petitioner is that petitioner has not been paid any amount of compensation and for which he has also submitted application as early as in the year 2019.

¶26

Considering the facts and circumstances of case, the fact that land allotted to petitioner being Kotwar has already been transferred in the name of Naya Raipur Development Authority, there is already an order regarding grant of appropriate compensation in lieu of acquisition of service land, this writ petition stands disposed of at this stage directing respondent No.3 to take decision on pending application of the petitioner dated 13.10.2014 (Annexure P-11) for grant of compensation as early as possible, preferably within an outer limit of four months from the date of receipt of this order. Petitioner is also directed to enclose copy of writ petition along with annexures for perusal of concerned authority and for taking appropriate

¶27

decision. Petitioner will be at liberty to submit fresh representation in addition to pending application along with this

¶28

order, if he so desires.

¶29

Certified copy as per rules.

¶30

Sd/(Parth Prateem Sahu) Judge

¶31

roshan/-

manikdas Manikpuri v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

manikdas Manikpuri v. State of Chhattisgarh

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

Phool Sai Maravi Vs R.P. Verma

Virendra Kumar Pant Vs Nitin Dansena

Mayank Verma, Vs Kamalpreet Singh

Bank of India Vs The District Magistrate

South Eastern Coalfied Limited Vs Sheikh Shahbaj

Smt. Ramkali Vs State of Chhattisgarh