Govind Yadav Vs State of Chhattisgarh

1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through - Its Secretary, Department Of Revenue And Disaster Management, Mantralaya, Capital Complex, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Raipur, District- Raipur (C.G.)

¶15

2 - Collector Office Of The Collector, District- Sakti (C.G.)

¶16

3 - The Sub-Divisional Officer Land Acquisition Officer, Sub Division Malkharouda, District- Sakti (C.G.)

¶17

4 - Tahsildar Office Of The Tahsildar, Malkharouda, District- Sakti (C.G.)

¶18

5 - Halka Patwari No. 25 Inspector Of Revenue Division / Tahsil Malkharouda, Office Of The Tahsildar, Malkharouda, District- Sakti (C.G.)

¶19

6 - The Executive Engineer Public Works Department (Pwd), District- Sakti, Chhattisgarh.

¶20

7 - C.G. State Road Development Authority Project Manager (A.D.B. Project) Public Works Department, District- Bilaspur, (C.G.)

¶21

... Respondents

¶22

2

¶23

For Petitioners : Mr. Preetam Kumar Khunte, Advocate For State/Respondent(s) : Dr. Arham Siddiqui, Panel Lawyer

¶24

(Hon’ble Shri Justice Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi)

¶25

Order on Board

¶26

12/03/2026

¶27

1. The petitioners have preferred the present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking issuance of direction to respondent No.2/Collector, District Sakti (CG) to decide pending representation of the petitioners.

¶28

2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners are resident of Village Pirhid, Tahsil Malkharuda, District Sakti (CG) and their land has been acquired for the purpose of construction of Jaijaipur-MalkharoadaGobrabhatha road and the same has been constructed under the Chhattisgarh State Road Development Project (ADB Project). The land has been acquired under Mutual Consent Purchasing Policy, 2016, but no compensation/ other benefits has been given to the petitioners. He further submits that the petitioners have filed representation (Annexure-P/5) on 05.05.2025 before respondent No.2, but the same has not been decided yet, therefore, it is prayed that this petition may be disposed of directing respondent No.2 to decide the representation of the petitioners within the period specified by this Court.

¶29

3. Learned counsel for the State has no objection in allowing the limited prayer of the petitioners.

¶30

4. As per the petitioners, their land has been utilized for construction of road, but no compensation has been given, which is against Article 300 A of the Constitution of India, as no person can be deprived of his property without following due process of law and acquisition proceedings can be completed

¶31

3

¶32

after giving compensation to the affected persons, which has not been done in the instant case. Therefore, having considered the limited prayer of the petitioners, this petition is disposed of directing respondent No.2/Collector, District Sakti (CG) to decide the representation dated 05.05.2025 (AnnexureP/5) filed by the petitioners, in accordance with law, within 45 days from the date of receipt/ submission of a copy of this order.

¶33

5 . Withe aforesaid observation and direction, this petition stands disposed

¶34

of.

¶35

6 . Pending interlocutory application(s), if any, also stands disposed of. No order as to cost(s).

¶36

Sd/-

¶37

(Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi) Judge

¶38

Rukhsar

Govind Yadav v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Govind Yadav 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

Sandeep Ekka Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Guldasta Parveen Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Rajesh Kumar Ghosh Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Ritesh Sharma Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Ramlal Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Nandram Navrang Vs State of Chhattisgarh