Disposed

Digeshwar Prasad Bareth v. State of Chhattisgarh

Chhattisgarh HC9 Feb 2025WPC/515/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of this writ petition regarding non-payment of land acquisition compensation. The parties were directed to ensure the claim is processed and verified within four months, with a proviso for interest if delay is attributable to respondent inaction.

What did the court decide?

Directed respondent authorities to process and verify the compensation claim within four months.

Digeshwar Prasad Bareth Vs State of Chhattisgarh — Land Acquisition | Chhattisgarh HC (2025)

1 / 3

2025:CGHC:7263

NAFR

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶5

WPC No. 515 of 2025

¶6

1 - Digeshwar Prasad Bareth S/o Bhagwat Prasad Bareth Aged About 34 Years Gram - Gunjiyabod, Tehsil - Jaijaipur, District Sakti (C.G.).

¶7

2 - Luvkumar S/o Kashiram Aged About 34 Years Gram - Gunjiyabod, Tehsil - Jaijaipur, District Sakti (C.G.).

¶8

... Petitioners

¶9

versus

¶10

1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Water Resources Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, New Raipur (C.G.).

¶11

2 – Commissioner, Bilaspur Division, Bilaspur (C.G.).

¶12

3 - Collector (Land Acquisition Branch), District - Sakti (C.G.).

¶13

4 - SDO (R) & Land Acquisition Officer, District - Sakti (C.G.).

¶14

5 – Tehsildaar, Jaijaipur, District - Sakti (C.G.).

¶15

6 - Sub Registrar, Jaijaipur, District - Sakti (C.G.).

¶16

7 - Executive Engineer, Minimaata Bango Canal Division No. 6, Nandelibhata-Sakti, District - Sakti (C.G.).

¶17

... Respondents

¶18

(Cause title is t	aken from Case Information System)
For Petitioners	: Mr. Manish Kumar Saluja, Advocate and Mr. Raj Kumar Sahu, Advocate
For Respondents/State	: Mr. Nupoor Sonkar, Panel Lawyer

¶19

2 / 3

¶20

(HON’BLE SHRI JUSTICE BIBHU DATTA GURU)

¶21

Order on Board

¶22

10/02/2025

¶23

Grievance of the Petitioners in the present Writ Petition seems to be the inaction on the part of the Respondents in not paying compensation towards the Petitioners in lieu of their private land which has been acquired by the Respondent/State authorities for construction of Bhanetra Branch 1 R Canal, under Minimaata Bango Project.

¶24

The subject land owned by petitioner No.1 bearing Khasra No.487/4 admeasuring area of 0.04 acre and the land owned by petitioner No.2 bearing Khasra No.487/3 admeasuring area of 0.04 acre situated at Village Gunjiyabod, R.N.M Hasaud, Tahsil Jaijaipur, District Sakti.

¶25

According to learned Counsel for Petitioners, the subject land stood acquired way back in the year 2018-19. The Award in this regard was passed on 30/12/2020 under the Land Purchase with Mutual Consent Policy, 2016. Nonetheless, the grievance of the Petitioners is that though the said Award has been passed, till date the Petitioners have not been paid compensation.

¶26

On the previous date of hearing, this Court had directed the State Counsel to seek instructions. However, learned State Counsel today submits that the instructions are still awaited.

¶27

Considering the nature of grievance of the Petitioners being the non-releasing of the compensation in lieu of their land which stood

¶28

3 / 3

¶29

acquired by the Respondent State authorities, this Court is of the opinion that no fruitful purpose would be served in keeping the present Writ Petition pending; rather, ends of justice would meet if the Writ Petition itself is disposed of directing the Respondent authorities, particularly, the respondents No.3, 4 & 7 as the case may be, to ensure that the case of the Petitioners is immediately processed, verified and scrutinized as regards their claim for compensation against their land which stood acquired.

¶30

Furthermore, in the event, if the Petitioners are found to be entitled for compensation then appropriate steps should be taken for releasing of the compensation as per the assessment made vide Award dated 30/12/2020 (Annexure P-4), within an outer limit of four months.

¶31

In the event, if, upon verification of facts, it is found that the Petitioners are not paid the compensation that they are entitled for, then the entire compensation amount shall carry simple interest thereon at the rate of 10% per annum from the date of the impugned Award was passed. However, the payment of interest part shall be applicable only in the event, if, on verification, it is found that the non-releasing of the amount was on account of any inaction on the part of the Petitioners.

¶32

With the aforesaid direction/observation, the Writ Petition stands disposed of.

¶33

Sd/- (BIBHU DATTA GURU) JUDGE

¶34

$. Bhilwar

Digeshwar Prasad Bareth v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Digeshwar Prasad Bareth v. State of Chhattisgarh

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

Basant Kumar Paikra Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Aakash Vs Dr. B.S. Bishwas (Private Doctor)

Virendra Kumar Chandrakar Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Ajay Shukla Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Tradition Globe Trade India Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Kishor Kumar Vs Union of India