Neeldhar Samrath Vs State of Chhattisgarh

¶1

1

¶2

2025:CGHC:40874

¶3

NAFR

¶4

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶5

WPC No. 2260 of 2025

¶6

1 - Neeldhar Samrath S/o Late Hunga Samrath Aged About 29 Years R/o House No.-703, Bandlapal, Tehsil - Bhairamgarh, District- Bijapur, Chhattisgarh

¶7

... Petitioner(s)

¶8

versus

¶9

1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Panchayat And Rural Department, Vikas Bhawan, Ground Floor, Sector-19, North Block, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur, District - Raipur, Chhattisgarh

¶10

2 - Secretary Public Works Department, State Of Chhattisgarh, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur, District - Raipur, Chhattisgarh

¶11

3 - The Collector District - Bijapur, Chhattisgarh

¶12

4 - The Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue) Bhairamgarh, District- Bijapur, Chhattisgarh

¶13

5 - Janpad Panchayat Bhairamgarh Through Chief Executive Officer, Bhairamgarh, District- Bijapur, Chhattisgarh

¶14

6 - The Executive Engineer Public Works Department, District- Bijapur, Chhattisgarh

¶15

... Respondent(s)

¶16

2

¶17

For Petitioner(s) : Shri Sudhir Bajpai, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Shri Satish Gupta, GA

¶18

(Hon’ble Shri Justice Arvind Kumar Verma)

¶19

Order on Board

¶20

13/08/2025

¶21

Being aggrieved by the said order dated 17.102.204 (Annexure P/1), whereby the Collector, Bijapur has erroneously and illegally rejected the claim of the petitioner for compensation in lieu of his land being acquired by the respondent authorities for construction of road since the year 2008 and thereafter Tar/asphalt road was constructed in the year 2002 on the said land.

¶22

Facts of the case in brief are that the petitioner is the owner of land bearing Khasra No. 259/3,259/9,259/10, 258 total area 4.439 hectare at village Bhairamgarh, District Bijapur. The Public Works Department had constructed the road over the land of the petitioner. The petitioner made application dated 25.01.2022 to the Executive Engineer, PWD for grant of compensation in lieu of his land being acquired but no action has been taken by the authority concerned. He made another application for compensation to the Collector, Bijapur on 04.03.2022 and in consequence of the repeated applications made by the petitioner, the Tahsildar Bhairamgarh enquired the matter and directed the Patwari and Revenue Inspector to inspect the spot and submit report. On 4.11.2022, demarcation and measurement was done and it was found that the PWD had constructed the road over the land of the petitioner. The Tahsildar vide letter dated 7.11.2022 to the Executive Engineer, PWD

¶23

3

¶24

requested to take appropriate action and also forwarded the compensation patrak , spot inspection panchama and spot map of the land. On 27.02.2023, the Executive Engineer, PWD forwarded the case of the petitioner to the SDO(R) Bhairamgarh for conducting appropriate acquisition proceeding of the land of the petitioner. Since no action has been taken nor compensation has been paid to the petitioner, the petitioner has filed WPC No. 1693/2024 and this court vide order dated 22.03.2024 has directed the Collector, Bijapur to decide the pending representation of the petitioner dated 04.03.2022 preferably within a period of six months. In the light of the said order, the Collector, Bijapur has forwarded the letter to the SDO (R) -cum-Land Acquisition Officer, Bijapur for determination of compensation as per the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013. The SDO ®, Bhairamgarh inquired the matter and called for the Inspection Report and after constituting a Joint team of Sub Engineer, PWD, RI and village Patwari, report was prepared and submitted to the SDO (R) who had given a clear finding that the road is constructed over the lands of the petitioner but has rejected the application for grant of compensation to the petitioner for the acquired land. The witnesses were also examined however, the petitioner was not given any opportunity of hearing and ex-parte enquiry was conducted and thereafter in the year 2008, murum road was constructed by the gram panchayat and subsequently, in the year 2022, Tar road was constructed by the PWD. Hence, the petitioner has filed the present petition.

¶25

4

¶26

Contention of the counsel for the petitioner is that the Collector, Bijapur erroneously held that the petitioner has submitted his claim for compensation after a delay of 14-15 years and no documents were filed to prove the fact that he is the co-owner of the property as his uncle namely Lingu is of unsound mind. He submits that the petitioner was born in the year 1995 and at the age of 3 years, ie. in the year 1997, his parents died due to illness in the village and therefore he studied till Class 6 at Bhairamgarh and in the year 2006-07, he studied at Dantewada and then at Bemetara, Durg and Bilaspur. After completing his studies, he returned to his village in the year 2020-21 for cultivating his fields and came to know that out of the land of 0.466 hectares, the PWD has constructed Tar road. Contention of the counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner has been forcibly dispossessed from his property without following due process of law. He has placed his reliance in the matter of Tukaram Kana Joshi & Others Vs. Maharashtra Industrial Development Corporation (MIDC), 2012 (13)SCR 29 and Vidya Devi Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh, AIR 2020 SC 4709. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the order dated 17.10.2024 (Annexure P/1) passed by the Collector, Bijapur may be set aside and the representation of the petitioner may be decided after giving opportunity of hearing.

¶27

Learned State counsel submits that let the petitioner make a representation afresh before the concerned authority and in turn his representation would be decided in an objective manner after due verification.

¶28

5

¶29

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the petition is disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to file fresh detailed representation along with all the documents assailing all his grievances raised in this petition along with this order before the concerned authority who, in turn shall decide the same in accordance with law after due verification and after giving opportunity of hearing to the petitioner.

¶30

With the above observation, the petition stands disposed of.

¶31

Sd/-

¶32

(Arvind Kumar Verma) Judge

¶33

Digitally signed by SUGUNA SUGUNA DUBEY DUBEY Date: 2025.08.18 11:09:21 +0530

Neeldhar Samrath v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Neeldhar Samrath 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Bharat Lal Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Smt. Babita Agrawal Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Smt. Lokeshwari Sahu Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Bhagwat Singh Rajput Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Mohd. Amin Meman Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Chatrapal Vs State of Chhattisgarh