Smt. Nema Bai (Deleted) Vs State of Chhattisgarh

¶1

1 / 4 WPC No. 1540 of 2017

¶2

2024:CGHC:40778

¶3

NAFR

¶4

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶5

WPC No. 1540 of 2017

¶6

1 - Fekuram S/o Roopa Singh, Aged About 64 Years R/o Village Kunvra (Kunra) Tehsil Navagarh District Bemetara Chhattisgarh.

¶7

---- Petitioner

¶8

versus

¶9

1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Ministry Of Water Resources Department, New Raipur Chhattisgarh.

¶10

2 - Superintending Engineer, Shivnath Madal, Durg Chhattisgarh.

¶11

3 - Executive Engineer, Water Resources Division, Bemetara, District Bemetara Chhattisgarh.

¶12

4 - Sub Divisional Officer, Water Resources Sub Division, Nawagarh, District Bemetara Chhattisgarh.

¶13

---- Respondents

¶14

WPC No. 1161 of 2019

¶15

1 - Smt. Nema Bai (Deleted)

¶16

2 - Charan Das S/o Late Ramkrishna Aged About 40 Years R/o Village Kunvra (Kunra) Tehsil Navagarh District Bemetara Chhattisgarh.

¶17

3 - Shyam Sundar S/o Late Rakkrishna Aged About 37 Years R/o Village Kunvra (Kunra) Tehsil Navagarh District Bemetara Chhattisgarh.

¶18

4 - Satyasukrit S/o Late Ramkrishna Aged About 32 Years R/o Village Kunvra (Kunra) Tehsil Navagarh District Bemetara Chhattisgarh.

¶19

5 - Satyabhama D/o Late Ramkrishna Aged About 38 Years R/o Village Kunvra (Kunra) Tehsil Navagarh District Bemetara Chhattisgarh.

¶20

6 - Satywati D/o Late Ramkrishna Aged About 30 Years R/o Village Kunvra (Kunra) Tehsil Navagarh District Bemetara Chhattisgarh.

¶21

---- Petitioners

¶22

BINIPRADEEP Digitally signedby BINIPRADEEPDate: 2024.10.1817:28:56 +0530

¶23

2 / 4 WPC No. 1540 of 2017

¶24

Versus

¶25

1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Ministry Of Water Resource Department , New Raipur, Chhattisgarh.

¶26

2 - Superintendent Engineer, Shivnath Madal, Durg Chhattisgarh.

¶27

3 - Executive Engineer Water Resource Division, Bemetara, District Bemetara Chhattisgarh.

¶28

4 - Sub Divisional Officer Water Resource Sub Division, Nawagarh, District Bemetara Chhattisgarh.

¶29

---- Respondents

¶30

For Petitioners : Mr. Sudhir Agrawal and Mr. Shashank Agrawal, Advocates

¶31

For Respondents/State : Mr. Rajeev Bharat, Govt. Advocate

¶32

(Hon’ble Shri Justice Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi)

¶33

Order on Board

¶34

16/10/2024

¶35

Since relief sought for by the petitioners are of similar nature in both the above petitions, hence, with consent of learned counsel for the parties, both cases are heard together finally.

¶36

Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that due to implementation of “Dhaba Diversion Scheme”, the petitioners’ land has been rendered useless as every year the land comes under the submergence area, therefore, the respondents be directed to provide adequate compensation to the petitioners or in the alternative, to allow them to take Rabi crops every year or provide alternative agricultural land for cultivation. He would submit that in WPC No.1768 of 2012 (Pradeep Shukla and Others Vs. State of Chhattisgarh and Others) , decided on 11.09.2014, concerning the same scheme, the Coordinate Bench of this Court has passed an order directing the authorities to submit report of submergence of land and thereafter, decide the matter relating to grant of compensation after physical

¶37

3 / 4 WPC No. 1540 of 2017

¶38

verification regarding actual submergence, therefore, the present petitioners are also entitled for the similar relief.

¶39

During the course of submission, learned counsel for the petitioners also apprise the Court that in various other cases, i.e. WPC No.1526/2017, WPC No.2858/2016, WPC No.3347/2017 & WPC No.4385/2023, vide Orders dated 05.7.2024, 13.12.2017, 23.11.2016 & 06.10.2023 respectively, relief, as has been sought for by the petitioners in both the cases, has been granted to the petitioners of those cases by this Court.

¶40

Learned counsel for the State would submit that if the petitioners’ case is similar to the case of Pradeep Shukla (supra), after due verification and satisfaction, the concerned authorities may take similar decision. However, for that, the petitioners are required to submit a representation before the concerned authorities.

¶41

In the matter of Pradeep Shukla (supra) , this Court has held in para 9 as under :-

¶42

“9. The petitioners have prayed that respondents be directed to operate sloes in particular manner. This cannot be ordered by this Court. In what manner, an irrigation scheme is to be implemented and operated is essentially a matter to be decided by the Department of Water Resources. This Court cannot direct that irrigation scheme should be operated in a particular manner. However, if by operation of the irrigation scheme, any holder of land is deprived of use of his land, he is certainly entitled to compensation in accordance with law. In view of the above, petitioners have made out a case for issuance of suitable direction to respondents. Hence following order :

¶43

(A) Executive Engineer having sent a proposal on 26.04.2011 to the Superintendent Engineer with a clear report of submergence of land, the Superintendent Engineer or such higher authority who is competent to

¶44

4 / 4

¶45

WPC No. 1540 of 2017

¶46

take decision in the matter should decide the matter relating to grant of compensation after physical verification regarding actual submergence of land belonging to the petitioners. This should be done within a period of 04 months from the date of receipt of copy of this order by respondent No.2/Superintendent Engineer.

¶47

(B) On a factual finding regarding submergence of petitioner's land wholly or in part under the diversion scheme, the respondent shall either proceed to assess the compensation as per the proceedings of the land Acquisition Act or provide land in exchange, to the petitioners. The decision in this regard shall have to be taken by respondents within a further period of two months.”

¶48

Considering the fact that learned counsel for the State has not conceded to the petitioners’ submission that their case is similar to the case of Pradeep Shukla (supra) , the writ petition is disposed of with a direction that the petitioners may move representation before the Superintending Engineer, Shivnath Madal, Durg (C.G.) i.e. respondent No.2, within a period of one month from today. The said officer shall consider and verify as to whether the petitioners’ case is similar to the case of Pradeep Shukla (supra) . If the petitioners’ case is similar, the petitioners would be entitled to similar relief as has been granted in the case of Pradeep Shukla (supra).

¶49

The writ petitions stand disposed of accordingly.

¶50

Sd/-

¶51

(Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi)

¶52

Judge

¶53

Bini

Smt. Nema Bai (Deleted) v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Nema Bai (Deleted) v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt. Kamini Yaduraj Vs Shri Rishabhdev Yaduraj

Ramsahay Verma Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Naresh Ekka Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Smt. Satyavati Yadav Vs Munnalal Agrawal

Sandeep Kumar Sonkar Vs Ramgopal

C.g. State Warehousing Corp. Vs Uttam Kumar Sahu and Or.s