Disposed

Dhan Bai Soni v. Union of India

Chhattisgarh HC25 Nov 2024MCC/906/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Chhattisgarh disposed of two miscellaneous civil cases together. It granted liberty to the applicant to take recourse to the National Highways Act, 1956, and directed corrections of typographical errors regarding an annexure reference and a date in an underlying award.

What did the court decide?

Liberty to take recourse to law under National Highways Act, 1956 granted; typographical errors in impugned order corrected; both cases disposed of together.

Dhan Bai Soni Vs Union of India — Land Acquisition | Chhattisgarh HC (2024)

2024:CGHC:46238

NAFR

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶5

MCC No. 1025 of 2024

¶6

1 - National Highways Authority Of India Through Project Director, Project Execution Unit, Bilaspur, Abhilasha Parisar, Near New Bus Stand, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh.

¶7

---- Applicant

¶8

versus

¶9

1 - Dhan Bai Soni W/o Shri Nand Kumar Soni, Aged About 53 Years R/o Ward No. 6, Baloda, District Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh.

¶10

2 - Union Of India, Through Its Competent Authority, Ministry Of Road Transport And Highway Transport Bhawan, 1, Parliament Street, New Delhi, 110001.

¶11

3 - State Of Chhattisgarh, Through Secretary Department Of Revenue, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Nava Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 4 - Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue)-Cum Competent Authority For Land Acquisition, Janjgir, District Janjgir - Champa, Chhattisgarh.

¶12

---- Respondents

¶13

MCC No. 906 of 2024

¶14

1 - Dhan Bai Soni W/o Shri Nand Kumar Soni, Aged About 53 Years R/o Ward No. 6, Baloda, District Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh.

¶15

---- Applicant

¶16

Versus

¶17

1 - Union Of India Through Its Competent Authority, Ministry Of Road Transport And Highway, Transport Bhawan, 1, Parliament Street, NewDelhi, 110001.

¶18

2 - National Highway Authority Of India, Through Project Director, Project Execution Unit, Bilaspur, Abhilasha Parisar, Near New Bus Stand, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh.

¶19

3 - State Of Chhattisgarh, Through Secretary Department Of Revenue, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Nava Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 4 - Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue)-Cum-Competent Authority For Land Acquisition, Janjgir, District Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh.

¶20

---- Respondents

¶21

(Cause title is taken from Case Information System)

¶22

Digitally SHAYNA signed by KADRI SHAYNA KADRI

¶23

¶24

For Applicant in MCC No. 1025 of 2024 & for Respondent-NHAI in MCC No. 906 of 2024.	: Mr. Dhiraj Kumar Wankhede, Advocate
For Applicant in MCC No. 906 of 2024 & for Respondent No. 1 in MCC No. 1025 of 2024.	: Mr. Aman Tamboli, Advocate
For State	: Mr. Amandeep Singh, Panel Lawyer
For Union of India	: Ms. Anmol Sharma, Central Govt. Advocate

¶25

SB: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Parth Prateem Sahu Order on Board

¶26

26.11.2024

¶27

As both MCC are arising out of same order, they are heard and disposed of together by common order.

¶28

MCC No. 1025 of 2024 is filed with a prayer that due to inadvertent typographical error, liberty is not reserved with applicant to take recourse to the law against award dated 06.11.2020.

¶29

Learned counsel for applicant contended that in other petitions allowed by this Court on same grounds, liberty was reserved with the applicant to take recourse to the law in accordance with the provisions under National Highways Act, 1956 (for Short, “the Act of 1956”), hence, applicant may be granted same liberty.

¶30

Submission made by applicant is not opposed by learned counsel for respondents.

¶31

On due consideration of the submission made by learned counsel for the respective parties, in paragraph 8 of the order passed in W.P.(C.) No. 2269 of 2024, following should be added and read : “Respondent No. 2 will be at liberty to take recourse to the law in accordance with the provisions under the Act of 1956.”

¶32

¶33

Applicant in MCC No. 906 of 2024 has prayed for correction of typographical error in the order dated 05.09.2024.

¶34

Learned counsel for applicant submits that in third line of paragraph 8 of the order impugned instead of Annexure P/10, it is mentioned as Annexure P/1 and further that in the last line of paragraph 8, due to typographical error, date is mentioned as 06.09.2020 instead of 06.11.2020.

¶35

Submission made by learned counsel for applicant is not opposed by learned counsel for respondents.

¶36

On due consideration of the submission made by learned counsel for the respective parties as also the records of writ petition, prayer made by learned counsel for applicant is allowed and it is directed that in third line of paragraph 8 be read as “amended calculation sheet dated 04.07.2023 (Annexure P/10)” instead of Annexure P/1 and further in the last line of paragraph 8, 06.09.2020 be read as “06.11.2020.

¶37

It is ordered accordingly.

¶38

Both MCCs’ are disposed of as observed above.

¶39

Office is directed to place copy of this order in writ petition bearing No. 2269 of 2024.

¶40

Sd/- (Parth Prateem Sahu)

¶41

Judge

¶42

Shayna

Dhan Bai Soni v. Union of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dhan Bai Soni 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

State of Chhattisgarh, Vs Anil Kumar Tiwari

Mukesh Mishra @ Harishchandra Mishra Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Smt. Ishwari Jaiswal Vs Naveen Kumar Jaiswal

Purshottam Vs Mohanlal

Uday Krishna Ratre Vs State of Chhattisgarh

National Highways Authority of India Vs Dhan Bai Soni