Disposed¶31

Smt. Reeta Baid v. State of Chhattisgarh

Chhattisgarh HC17 Sept 2025WPC/534/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Land acquisition compensation; C.C. road construction on private land; Nagar Panchayat Kota; RFCTLARR Act 2013 compliance; pending representations dated 04.04.2024 and 16.05.2024; direction to decide within 120 days; writ petition disposed without merits; Mungeli/Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh; single-judge order (NAFR); claimed but unawarded cost Rs. 1,00,000/-.

What did the court decide?

Direction to respondent No.4 (Nagar Panchayat Kota) to consider and decide the petitioner's representations dated 04.04.2024 (Annexure P-5) and 16.05.2024 (Annexure P-6) expeditiously, preferably within 120 days from receipt of a copy of the order, in accordance with rules, regulations and law; no opinion expressed on merits. ¶31

Smt. Reeta Baid Vs State of Chhattisgarh — Land Acquisition | Chhattisgarh HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶31

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioner is entitled to compensation, solatium and interest @ 18% per annum under the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act 2013, and costs of Rs. 1,00,000/-, on account of her land being used by respondent No.4 for construction of a C.C. road. +1 more

¶23

Ratio / Principle

The writ petition is disposed of directing respondent No.4 to consider and decide the petitioner's representations dated 04.04.2024 (Annexure P-5) and 16.05.2024 (Annexure P-6) expeditiously, preferably within a period of 120 days from receipt of a copy of the order, in accordance with rules, regulations and law.

¶29

Key takeaways

The Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case.ratio¶30

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Chhattisgarh High Court, Bilaspur (Arvind Kumar Verma, J.), WPC No. 534 of 2025, decided 18/09/2025: Petitioner alleged that her land was being used by respondent No.4 (Nagar Panchayat Kota) for construction of a C.C. road without compensation under the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act 2013, and sought compensation, solatium, interest @ 18% per annum and costs of Rs. 1,00,000/-. Counsel confined the petition to a request that the petitioner's representations dated 04.04.2024 (Annexure P-5) and 16.05.2024 (Annexure P-6) be decided in accordance with rules, regulations and law, to which the State had no objection. The Court disposed of the writ petition directing respondent No.4 to consider and decide those representations expeditiously, preferably within 120 days, in accordance with law, expressly refraining from expressing any opinion on the merits.

2025:CGHC:47976

NAFR

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

¶5

WPC No. 534 of 2025

¶6

Smt. Reeta Baid W/o Sunil Kumar Baid Aged About 55 Years R/o Sardar Patel Ward Ward, Mungeli, Tahsil And District- Mungeli (C.G.)

¶7

... Petitioner(s)

¶8

versus

¶9

1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Urban Administration And Development Department, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhavan, Atal Nagar Nawa Raipur (C.G.)

¶10

2 - Joint Director Regional Office Urban Administration And Development Department, Bilaspur, District- Bilaspur (C.G.)

¶11

3 - Collector Bilaspur District- Bilaspur (C.G.)

¶12

Digitally signed by VASANT VASANT KUMAR KUMAR Date:2025.09.18 17:38:23 +0530

¶13

4 - Nagar Panchayat Kota Through- Chief Municipal Officer Kota, District- Bilaspur (C.G.)

¶14

---- Respondents

¶15

For Petitioner : Mr. Devesh G. Kela, Advocate For State-respondent : Mr. Soumitra Kesharwani, PL For Respondent No.4 : Mr. Satish Gupta, Advocate

¶16

Hon'ble Shri Justice Arvind Kumar Verma

Order on Board

18/09/2025

1. By way of this petition, petitioner sought following relief(s) :

¶21

“10.1 10.1. To call for the records of the case for the kind perusal of this Hon'ble Court.

¶22

10.2 To issue an appropriate writ or order and direct the respondents to comply the provisions of Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act 2013 with respect to land of the petitioner and thereafter determination of compensation, solatium of acquired land and make payment with interest from the date of construction of C.C road @ 18% per annum.

¶23

10.3 That the petitioners land is being used by construction of C.C. road by the Respondent No.4 and therefore cost of Rs. 1,00,000/- be awarded to petitioner.

¶24

10.4 Any other relief / reliefs which may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case, may also be allowed.”

¶25

2. At the outset, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the

¶26

petitioner has made representations before respondent No.4 on 04.04.2024 (Annexure P-5) and 16.05.2024 (Annexure P-6) and the petitioner wants to decide the same in accordance with rules, regulations and law.

¶27

3. Learned State counsel contended that looking to the limited prayer made by the petitioner she has no objection.

¶28

¶29

4. Considering the facts of the case and submission made by counsel for the respective parties, this writ petition is disposed of directing to respondent No.4 to consider and decide the representations made be the petitioner on 04.04.2024 (Annexure P-5) and 16.05.2024 (Annexure P-6) expeditiously preferably within a period of ‘120 days’ from the date of receipt of copy of this order, in accordance with rules, regulations and law.

¶30

5. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case.

¶31

6. With the aforesaid direction, this petition stands disposed of.

¶32

Sd/-

¶33

(Arvind Kumar Verma) Judge

¶34

Vasant

Smt. Reeta Baid v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Reeta Baid 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

Sushil Agrawal Vs South Eastern Coal Fields Limited

Murari Lal Agrawal Vs Principal Chief Commercial Manager

Harsha Chandrakar Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Gram Bharti Janjati Seva Mandal Vs State of Chhattisgarh

M/S Gagan Fuels (a Proprietorship Concern), Torwa Bilaspur Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Jai Ambey Multispecialty Hospital Vs the State of Chhattisgarh