Disposed¶35

Vinay Kumar Kaiwart v. State of Chhattisgarh

Chhattisgarh HC14 Jan 2025WPC/2129/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Land oustees; NTPC Korba; land acquisition compensation; employment to project-affected family members; Article 226 Constitution of India; impugned order dated 18.03.2024 Annexure P/1; fresh individual representation; time-bound decision within 6 months; limitation not extended; merits left open; disposed of by consent direction; High Court of Chhattisgarh Bilaspur; WPC No. 2129 of 2024; Justice Deepak Kumar Tiwari.

What did the court decide?

With the consent-based direction, the Writ Petition was disposed of: the competent authority is to consider and decide the petitioners' fresh individual representations for employment and compensation expeditiously, preferably within six months of receipt, in accordance with law; the substantive prayers (including setting aside the order dated 18.03.2024) were not adjudicated. ¶35

Vinay Kumar Kaiwart Vs State of Chhattisgarh — Writ and Judicial Review | Chhattisgarh HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶35

Issue for consideration

Whether the competent authority should be directed to consider and decide the petitioners' fresh individual representations for employment and compensation, the petitioners being land oustees claiming entitlement under the policy.

¶29

Court's answer

If the petitioners make fresh representations seeking employment and compensation individually, the concerned competent authority of the respondents shall consider and decide them expeditiously, preferably within six months from the date of receipt of the representation, in accordance with law.

¶32

Key takeaways

The Court expressly did not express any opinion on the merits of the case, leaving the competent authority at liberty to decide the representation strictly on its own merits according to settled legal principles and applicable law and rules.obiter¶33
The representations preferred by the petitioners shall not be construed as an extension of limitation or a relaxation of the applicable legal provisions.obiter¶34

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Chhattisgarh High Court, Bilaspur — WPC No. 2129 of 2024, decided 15/01/2025 (Deepak Kumar Tiwari, J.). Three land oustees of NTPC, Korba filed a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking records, setting aside of an impugned order dated 18.03.2024 (Annexure P/1), and release of compensation with employment to a family member towards acquired land, claiming entitlement as per policy. Counsel for the petitioners prayed for disposal with a direction to Respondent No.4 (NTPC) to decide their fresh individual representations expeditiously, noting that a representation on compensation was already pending; counsel for Respondent No.4 did not oppose. The Court disposed of the writ petition directing that, if fresh representations seeking employment and compensation are made individually, the concerned competent authority shall consider and decide them expeditiously, preferably within six months from receipt, in accordance with law, while expressly refraining from expressing any opinion on the merits and clarifying that the representations shall not be construed as an extension of limitation or relaxation of applicable legal provisions.

2025:CGHC:2548

AVINASH SHARMA

Digitally signed by AVINASH SHARMA Date: 2025.01.16 10:46:44 +0530

¶5

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶6

NAFR

¶7

WPC No. 2129 of 2024

¶8

1 - Vinay Kumar Kaiwart S/o Laxman Lal Kaiwart Aged About 29 Years R/o Quarter No. A-2139, Narmada Vihar, N.T.P.C., Korba, District Korba (C.G.).

¶9

2 - Ramkrishna Kewat S/o Panchram Kewat Aged About 59 Years R/o Dumardih, Post - Risdhi, Tahsil And District Korba (C.G.).

¶10

3 - Rakesh Kumar Kewat S/o Ramnarayan Kewat Aged About 22 Years R/o Mauhadih, Post - Bhilai Bazar, District Korba (C.G.).

¶11

... Petitioner(s)

¶12

versus

¶13

1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Collector And District Magistrate, Korba, District Korba (C.G.).

¶14

2 - The Sub - Divisional OfÏcer (Revenue) And Magistrate, Korba District Korba (C.G.).

¶15

3 - The Tahsildar And Executive Magistrate, Korba District Korba (C.G.).

¶16

4 - National Thermal Power Corporation (N.T.P.C.) Through The Chief General Manager, N.T.P.C. Korba, District Korba (C.G.)

¶17

.. Respondent(s)

¶18

¶19

For Petitioner(s)	: Shri Sangeet Kumar Kushwaha and Ms. Priya Kaiwart, Advocates.
For Respondent No.4	: Shri Anuroop Panda, Advocate.
For State	Shri Anurag Tripathi, PL.

¶20

Hon'ble Shri Justice Deepak Kumar Tiwari

¶21

Order on Board

¶22

15/01/2025

¶23

This petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India

¶24

seeking following reliefs:-

¶25

10.1 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to call the records pertaining to the case from the respondent authorities.

¶26

10.2 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue an appropriate writ, thereby setting-aside the impugned order dated 18.03.2024 (Annexure P/1).

¶27

10.3 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent authorities to release proper compensation towards acquired land of petitioners and also provide employment to the family member of petitioners towards acquired land, forthwith, in accordance with law.

¶28

10.4 To kindly grant any other relief which may be deem fit in the given facts and circumstances of the instant case.

¶29

At the outset learned counsel for the petitioners submits that this petition may be disposed of with a direction to Respondent No.4 to decide the fresh representation filed by the petitioners individually in an expeditious manner, within stipulated time frame as the petitioners are land oustees who, as per the policy, are entitled for employment as also for compensation. He further submits that representation as regards compensation is already pending before concerned competent authority.

¶30

Counsel for the Respondent No.4 would not oppose the aforesaid prayer.

¶31

¶32

Considering the prayer made by learned counsel for the petitioners, it is directed that if the petitioners make fresh representation seeking employment and compensation individually, the concerned competent authority of the respondents shall consider and decide the same, in an expeditious manner preferably within a period of 6 months from the date of receipt of representation, in accordance with law.

¶33

It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case and the concerned competent authority would be at liberty to decide the representation strictly on its own merits, according to the settled legal principles and applicable law, rules etc.

¶34

It is further made clear that the representations preferred by the petitioners shall not be construed to be an extension of limitation or relaxation in the applicable legal provisions.

¶35

With the aforesaid direction, this Writ Petition is disposed of.

¶36

Sd/- (Deepak Kumar Tiwari) Judge

¶37

Avinash

Vinay Kumar Kaiwart v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vinay Kumar Kaiwart 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

Kishore Masih Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Rajendra Kumar Thakur Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Sumit Nirmalkar Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Bharosa (Died) Throug Legal Heir Vs Smt.Asha Sharma

Ravinder Singh Vs Smt. Sarla Shrivastav

Smt. Rekha Bai Sadhwani and Ors. Vs Ramarao Sendre