Dismissed¶35

Lalita Devi Agrawal v. the State of Chhattisgarh

Chhattisgarh HC24 Mar 2025WPC/1401/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

RFCTLARR Act 2013; Section 23 of the Act, 2013; award dated 12.02.2016; compensation Rs. 1,72,000/-; interest at 12%; claim for interest @ 18% per annum; Land Acquisition Officer Cum Sub Divisional Officer (Rev.) Raipur; Public Works Department; Executive Engineer, Bridge Construction Division Raipur; State of Chhattisgarh; WPC No. 1401 of 2019; High Court of Chhattisgarh at Bilaspur; Rakesh Mohan Pandey, J.; decided 25.03.2025; writ petition dismissed; compensation already accepted by petitioner.

What did the court decide?

The award dated 12.02.2016 was passed in accordance with the provisions of Section 23 of the Act, 2013 and carried interest at the rate of 12%, so the relief sought (a fresh award under the 2013 Act) was already satisfied. ¶34

Lalita Devi Agrawal Vs the State of Chhattisgarh — Land Acquisition | Chhattisgarh HC (2025)

¶1

-1-

¶2

Digitally signed by NADIM MOHLE

¶3

2025:CGHC:14273

¶4

NAFR

¶5

HIGH COURT of CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶6

WPC No. 1401 of 2019

¶7

Lalita Devi Agrawal W/o Shri Rameshchand Agrawal Aged About 48 Years R/o Anupam Nagar, Sahnkar Nagar, Raipur District Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh.

¶8

... Petitioner

¶9

versus

¶10

1 - The State of Chhattisgarh Through Its Secretary Department of Public Works Department Mahanadi Bhavan New Raipur Chhattisgarh.

¶11

2 - Executive Engineer, Public Works Department (PWD), Bridge Construction Division Raipur Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh.

¶12

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

¶13

... Respondent(s)

¶14

(Cause Title is taken from Case Information System)

¶15

For Petitioner : None

¶16

For State : Mr. Pramod Ramteke, Panel Lawyer

¶17

Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board

¶18

25.03.2025

¶19

The petitioner has filed this petition seeking the following relief(s):-

¶20

“10.1 To call for the records of the case for the kind

¶21

-2-

¶22

perusal of this Hon'ble Court.

¶23

10.2 To issue an appropriate writ or order and direction to the respondent authority to passed the award in respect of the land of the petitioner and the competent authority to assessed the compensation according to the "The Right to fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act 2013 to the petitioner.

¶24

10.3 To issue an appropriate writ or order and direct the respondents to pay interest @ 18% per annum over the amount withheld by them in such an illegal and arbitrary manner.

¶25

10.4 Any other relief deemed fit in the facts and circumstances of the case may also be granted. ”

¶26

In the present case, the land acquisition proceeding was initiated by the

¶27

respondents and notifications were published according to the provisions of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (for short, the Act, 2013). The land acquisition officer passed award on 12.02.2016 according to the provisions of Section 23 of the Act, 2013 and compensation to the tune of

¶28

Rs. 1,72,000/- was awarded to the petitioner.

¶29

1. Mr. Pramod Ramteke, learned Panel Lawyer appearing for the State informed that amount of compensation has already been accepted by the petitioner. He would further contend that if the petitioner is still aggrieved, he may take recourse to law.

¶30

1. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the State and perused the

¶31

-3-

¶32

documents placed on file.

¶33

1. The petitioner in the present petition has sought relief to pass award according to the provisions of the Act, 2013 with interest @ 18%.

¶34

From a perusal of the award dated 12.02.2016, it is evident that it was passed in accordance with the provisions of Section 23 of the Act, 2013, with interest at the rate of 12%. Therefore, the prayer made by the petitioner appears to be misconceived, as the award was drawn in accordance with the provisions of the Act, 2013, no case is made out for

¶35

interference. Consequently, this writ petition is dismissed .

¶36

Sd/-

¶37

(Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge

¶38

NADIM

Lalita Devi Agrawal v. the State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Lalita Devi Agrawal v. the State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Jitendra Choubey Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Arun Kumar Saha Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Badri Prasad Sahu Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Anthony Ekka Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Bandhulal Chandrakar Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Lagan Prasad Gupta Vs State of Chhattisgarh