Disposed

Urmila Yadav v. Union of India

Chhattisgarh HC23 Apr 2024WPC/152/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners seeking compensation for land allegedly used for National Highway construction prayed for award of compensation. Court directed petitioners to obtain demarcation report via application before approaching Lando Officer for compensation representation, disposing of writs.

What did the court decide?

Directing petitioners to move for demarcation report under NHA Act 1956 and then file representation for compensation before Land Acquisition Officer.

Urmila Yadav Vs Union of India — Land Acquisition | Chhattisgarh HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

NAFR

¶3

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR WPC No. 102 of 2019

¶4

Neeta Pandey W/o Shri Jai Pandey Aged About 49 Years R/o 2 B-104 Sai Simran, Mahaveer Nagar, New Purena Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh.

¶5

---- Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

1. Union Of India Through Secretary Ministry Of Road Transport And Highways, New Delhi., District : New Delhi, Delhi

¶8

2. National Highway Authorities Of India Through Project Director, Project Implementation Unit, 5196, Behind BTI College, Shankar Nagar Raipur, Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh

¶9

3. The Land Acquisition Officer Cum Sub Divisional Officer Revenue Raipur, Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh

¶10

----Respondents AND

¶11

WPC No. 152 of 2019

¶12

1. Urmila Yadav W/o Shri Nandlal Yadav Aged About 59 Years R/o Hdd61, Kabir Nagar, Raipur, District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh

¶13

2. Navneet Sharma S/o Manilal Sharma Aged About 43 Years R/o A-44, Police Station- City Changrabhata, Raipur, District- Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh

¶14

3. Jai Pandey S/o Shri C.M. Pandey Aged About 43 Years R/o B-104, Sai Simran Mahaveer Nagar, New Puraina, Raipur, District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh

¶15

4. Vijay Singh Thakur S/o Shri Govind Singh Thakur Aged About 43 Years R/o Village Serikheri, Near Hanuman Temple, Adarsh Squire Srikheri, Post- Mandir Hasaud, Raipur, District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh

¶16

5. Diksha Mishra W/o Pranav Prabhakar Aged About 32 Years R/o Flat No. 101, Goden Tower, Puraina Raod, Mahaveer Nagar, Raipur, District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh

¶17

6. Pranav Prabhakar S/o Late Ravi Shankar Mishra Aged About 40 Years R/o Flat No. 101, Goden Tower, Puraina Raod, Mahaveer Nagar, Raipur, District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh

¶18

7. Atul Mirani S/o Late Shri Shanti Lal Mirani Aged About 49 Years R/o A/2, L.I.C. Colony, Mova Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh

¶19

¶20

8. Rhul Kadam S/o Late Shri Krishnarao Kadam Aged About 42 Years R/o In Front Of Sapre School Ground, Budhapara, District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh

¶21

---- Petitioners

¶22

Versus

¶23

1. Union Of India Through- Secretary Ministry Of Raod Transport And Highways, New Delhi, District : New Delhi, Delhi

¶24

2. National Highway Authorities Of India Through- Project Director, Project Implementation Unit, 5196, Behind Bti College, Shankar Nagar, Raipur, Chhattisgarh, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh

¶25

3. The Land Acquisition Officer Cum Sub Divisional Officer (Rev.) Raipur, Chhattisgarh, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh .

¶26

----Respondents

¶27

For Petitioners	: Shri Ravikar Patel, Advocate.
For Respondents No.1 & 2	: Ms. Anmol Sharma, CGC.
For Respondent No.3/ State	: Shri Keshav Gupta, G.A.

¶28

Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board

¶29

24.04.2024

¶30

1. The petitioners have preferred these petitions for the award of compensation as the lands of the petitioners have been acquired for the construction of National Highway No.30/200.

¶31

1. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would submit that a report was submitted by the Patwari according to which some portion of their lands have been acquired for the construction of the National Highway. He would further submit that a part of compensation was paid pertaining to some portion of land whereas no compensation has been paid with regard to the remaining part of the land of respective survey numbers. It is also argued that vide report dated 20.08.2018 (Annexure-P/5), the lands of the petitioners have been used for the construction

¶32

¶33

of the National Highway.

¶34

1. Learned counsel for respondents No.1 & 2/National Highways Authority of India would submit that if the petitioners submit the demarcation report along with the representation, the appropriate decision would be taken by the concerned Land Acquisition Officer.

¶35

1. Learned counsel for the State/ respondent No.3 would submit that the lands of the petitioners were used by the National Highways Authority.

¶36

1. Taking into consideration the above-stated facts, the petitioners are permitted to move an application for demarcation and the report of demarcation shall be issued in pro-forma appended to the National Highways Act, 1956. Thereafter, the petitioners would be at liberty to move a representation before the concerned Land Acquisition Officer and in turn, the concerned authority is directed to decide the representation and take appropriate decision with regard to payment of compensation if it is found that the lands of the petitioners have been acquired or used for the construction of National Highway.

¶37

1. With the aforesaid observation(s), both the writ petitions are disposed of .

¶38

Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge

¶39

Nimmi

Urmila Yadav v. Union of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Urmila Yadav 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

Devendra Nath Sahu Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Mewabai Sahu Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Radheshyam Sharma Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Salik Ram Rathore Vs The Union Of India

Neeta Pandey Vs Union of India

Lanco Amarkantak Power Ltd. Vs Union of India