Disposed¶29

Manharan Lal Verma v. State of Chhattisgarh

Land acquisition – non-payment of compensation

Chhattisgarh HC1 May 2025WPC/1744/2023

Download

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court of Chhattisgarh, Bilaspur; WPC No. 1744 of 2023; decided 02/05/2025 by Amitendra Kishore Prasad, J. Petitioner Manharan Lal Verma sought compensation for land taken over by State authorities without payment; no compensation for over five years despite representations, including Annexure-P/3 dated 09.11.2022. Petition disposed of: respondents directed to consider the representation within 90 days of production of the order and pass appropriate orders.

What did the court decide?

Direction to respondent authorities to consider the petitioner's representation dated 09.11.2022 (Annexure-P/3) expeditiously, preferably within 90 days from the date of production of the order, and to pass appropriate orders in accordance with law. ¶29

Manharan Lal Verma Vs State of Chhattisgarh — Land Acquisition | Chhattisgarh HC (2025)

2025:CGHC:20238

NAFR

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶5

WPC No. 1744 of 2023

¶6

1 - Manharan Lal Verma S/o Atmaram Verma Aged About 52 Years R/o Village Latua, Tahsil Balodabazar, District : Balodabazar-Bhathapara, Chhattisgarh

¶7

... Petitioner(s)

¶8

versus

¶9

1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Collector, Balodabazar, District : BalodabazarBhathapara, Chhattisgarh

¶10

2 - Sub Divisional Officer Cum Land Acquisition Officer Balodabazar, District : Balodabazar-Bhathapara, Chhattisgarh

¶11

3 - Executive Engineer Public Works Department, Balodabazar, District : Balodabazar-Bhathapara, Chhattisgarh

¶12

... Respondent(s)

¶13

For Petitioner : Mr. B. L. Dembra, Advocate For State : Mr. Santosh Bharat, Panel Lawyer

¶14

SB- Hon'ble Shri Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad

¶15

Order on Board

¶16

02/05/2025

¶17

Petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking following reliefs :-

¶18

“10.1 That, the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to call the entire records of pertaining to case of the petitioner from revenue authorities.

¶19

Digitally signed by SHAYNA KADRI

¶20

10.2 That, the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondents to decide the claim/representation of the petitioner and to award the compensation

¶21

¶22

in accordance with law after following due process of law.

¶23

10.3 Any other relief, which may be deemed fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case, may also be allowed.”

¶24

Learned counsel for petitioner submits that the present petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking just and fair compensation for the land that has already been taken over by the respondent authorities. It is the limited and humble grievance of the petitioner that although the land in question has been taken into possession by the respondent authorities, no compensation whatsoever has been paid to the petitioner till date. The petitioner has time and again approached the respondent authorities by submitting detailed representations requesting for settlement of his rightful claim, but no action has been taken in this regard, which amounts to gross inaction and dereliction of duty on the part of the respondents. More than five years have passed since the land was taken over by the respondents, and despite the lapse of such a considerable period, the petitioner has not been paid any compensation, which is not only arbitrary and unjust but also violative of the legal and constitutional rights of the petitioner. It is a well-settled principle of law that if land is acquired or taken over by the Government or any authority, compensation must be paid in accordance with law, including but not limited to the provisions of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, and any other applicable rules or

¶25

¶26

guidelines. The respondents were under a legal obligation to duly consider the representation of the petitioner and to ensure timely disbursal of compensation, which they have failed to do. At this stage, learned counsel for petitioner submits that petitioner is seeking limited relief directing the respondent authorities to consider the representation of the petitioner forthwith.

¶27

Learned State counsel submits that in view of the limited prayed made by learned counsel for petitioner, he is having no objection. If no decision is yet taken on the representation submitted by petitioner, it will be considered in accordance with law.

¶28

Heard learned counsel for respective parties.

¶29

Taking into consideration nature of grievance raised, submission of learned counsel for petitioner based on Annexure-P/3 which is representation dated 09.11.2022, this writ petition is disposed of at this stage, directing respondent - authorities to consider the representation submitted by petitioner expeditiously preferably within a period of 90 days from the date of production of this order and to pass appropriate orders in this regard.

¶30

Sd/-

¶31

( Amitendra Kishore Prasad )

¶32

JUDGE

¶33

Shayna

Manharan Lal Verma v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Manharan Lal Verma 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

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shanti Bai Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Nohar Singh Sonwani Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Abhay Gautam Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Parvati Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Shyam Pal Tamrakar Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Ten Singh Rajput Vs State of Chhattisgarh