Disposed

Golchha Agro Product Private Lmt. and Ors. v. State Of Chhattisgarh and Ors.

Chhattisgarh HC15 Oct 2024WPC/1732/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A writ petition challenging the refusal of compensation for 1740 trees with diameter below 20 cm acquired by NRDA. The Court directed authorities to reconsider the claim granting liberty to file a representation within three months for appropriate orders.

What did the court decide?

Liberty granted to file a representation to Respondents No.1, 2 and 4, who must pass appropriate orders within three months.

Golchha Agro Product Private Lmt. and Ors. Vs State Of… — Land Acquisition | Chhattisgarh HC (2024)

¶1

1 / 5

¶2

Digitally signed by GOPAL SINGH Date: 2024.10.17 11:12:27 +0530

¶3

2024:CGHC:40766

¶4

NAFR

¶5

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶6

Writ Petition (C) No.1732 of 2013

¶7

Golchha Agro Product Private Limited through its Managing Director Smt. Usha Golchha, W/o Santosh Golchha, aged about 60 years, R/o ‘Usha Kiran’ Malviya Nagar, P.S. Mohan Nagar, Tahsil and District Durg, Chhattisgarh

¶8

Chainkaran Jain, S/o Late K.C. Golchha, aged about 62 years, R/o 225, ‘Usha Kiran’ Malviya Nagar, P.S. Mohan Nagar, Tahsil and District Durg, Chhattisgarh

¶9

Santosh Golchha, S/o Late K.C. Golchha, aged about 60 years, Director, Golchha Agro Product Private Limited, R/o ‘Usha Kiran’ Malviya Nagar, P.S. Mohan Nagar, Tahsil and District Durg, Chhattisgarh

¶10

... Petitioners

¶11

versus

¶12

State of Chhattisgarh through Secretary, Department of Revenue, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Capital Complex, Naya Raipur, P.S. Rakhi, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh

¶13

State of Chhattisgarh through Secretary Department of Forest, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Capital Complex, Naya Raipur, P.S. Rakhi, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh

¶14

2 / 5

¶15

The Collector, Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh

¶16

Naya Raipur Development Authority through the Chief Executive Officer, Naya Raipur Development Authority, Beside Mahanadi Dwar of Mantralaya, Capital Complex, Naya Raipur, Village Rakhi, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh

¶17

The Deputy Manager (Land), Naya Raipur Development Authority, Beside Mahanadi Dwar of Mantralaya, Capital Complex, Naya Raipur, Village Rakhi, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh

¶18

The Chairman-cum-Collector, Committee for Determination of Rate of Tree and Structure, Under Naya Raipur Project, Naya Raipur Development Authority, Beside Mahanadi Dwar of Mantralaya, Capital Complex, Naya Raipur, Village Rakhi, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh

¶19

… Respondents

¶20

For Petitioners	: Shri Ashish Surana, Advocate
For State/Respondents 1 to 3	: Shri H.A.P.S. Bhatia, Panel Lawyer
For Respondents 4 to 6	: Shri Praveen Das, Advocate

¶21

Hon’ble Shri Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad

¶22

Order on Board

¶23

16.10.2024

¶24

The Petitioners have filed the instant petition alleging that their land has been acquired by the Naya Raipur Development Authority (henceforth ‘the NRDA’) vide mutual consent and in the said land there are as many as 9137 trees which were planted and grown. Therefore, along with the sale price of the

¶25

3 / 5

¶26

land, compensation in respect of the said trees were also required to be given. The NRDA has given compensation/cost for 7397 trees to the Petitioners. However, for rest of the trees, which are 1740 in number, no compensation/cost has been given to the Petitioners stating that as per the policy of the Forest Department for the trees having diameter below 20 centimeters no amount is given as these trees do not have any commercial value.

¶27

It is submitted by the Petitioners that subsequently the Forest Department issued some directions according to which they are giving compensation/cost for the trees having diameter below 20 centimeters. As such, the Respondents/authorities may be directed to reconsider their claim and pass orders for grant of compensation/cost in respect of 1740 trees which have been acquired by the NRDA. It is further submitted that according to Annexure P13, which has been filed at page No.92 of the petition, the authorities are required to consider the claim of the Petitioners.

¶28

On the other hand, Learned Counsel for the State/Respondents 1 to 3 submitted that the circular which the Petitioners have referred, relates to Teak ( sagaun ) trees and not other trees and

¶29

4 / 5

¶30

as such it has to be seen whether the compensation/cost for the other trees can be granted or not.

¶31

Shri Praveen Das, Learned Counsel for the NRDA/Respondents 4 to 6 submitted that if there is a provision, compensation can be calculated. However, according to him, no compensation/cost can be given in respect of the trees which have diameter below 20 centimeters as they do not have any commercial value.

¶32

Having heard the rival contentions put-forth on behalf of the parties, I am of the considered view that the dispute can be resolved by the concerned authorities especially by Respondents No.1, 2 and 4. The writ petition is pending since the year 2013, as such the purpose would be served if the concerned Respondents/authorities decide the claim of the Petitioners in accordance with law keeping in view that for some category of trees having diameter below 20 centimeters they are granting compensation/cost. Furthermore, according to Annexure R2 dated 27.3.2014 filed by the State along with their return, projected cost of establishment can be taken for the trees having diameter below 20 centimeters.

¶33

Accordingly, at this stage, the Petitioners are granted liberty to pursue their remedy by filing a representation along with

¶34

5 / 5

¶35

necessary documents before the concerned authorities/Respondents No.1, 2 and 4 and it is directed that on receipt of such representation from the Petitioners Respondents No.1, 2 and 4 shall consider the representation and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law within a period of three months from today.

¶36

With the directions aforestated, the instant writ petition is disposed of.

¶37

Sd/-Sd/-

¶38

(Amitendra Kishore Prasad) JUDGE

¶39

Gopal

Golchha Agro Product Private Lmt. and Ors. v. State Of Chhattisgarh and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Golchha Agro Product Private Lmt. and Ors. v. State Of Chhattisgarh and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Yudhishthir Prasad Patel (Died) Through Legal Heirs- (1) Gopi Lal Patel Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Smt. Krishna Devi Agrawal and Ors. Vs State Of C.g. and Ors.

Church of Christ Mission in India Vs C.G. Information Commission

Govind Jha Vs State Of Chhattisgarh and Anr.

Govind Jha Vs State Of C.g. and Ors.

State Of Chhattisgarh Vs Chhattisgarh Board Of Revenue And Anr.