Ramsakal Vs Union of India

¶1

1

¶2

2026:CGHC:2973

¶3

RUKHSAR BANO

¶4

Digitally signed by RUKHSAR BANO Date: 2026.01.21 10:39:36 +0530

¶5

NAFR

¶6

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶7

WPC No. 222 of 2026

¶8

1 - Ramsakal S/o Jata Sao Aged About 60 Years R/o Village- Bhanaura, TehsilBalrampur, District- Balrampur Ramanujganj C.G.

¶9

2 - Sethi Prasad Gupta S/o Bigan Prasad Aged About 63 Years R/o VillageBhanaura, Tehsil- Balrampur, District- Balrampur Ramanujganj C.G.

¶10

3 - Mahmood Ansari S/o Nanu Ansari Aged About 52 Years R/o Village- Aghora, Tehsil- Balrampur, District- Balrampur Ramanujganj C.G.

¶11

4 - Kailash Dwivedi S/o Koduram Dwivedi Aged About 46 Years R/o VillageBhanaura, Tehsil- Balrampur, District- Balrampur Ramanujganj C.G.

¶12

... Petitioners

¶13

versus

¶14

1 - Union Of India Through Secretary Department Of Road Transport And Highway New Delhi (India).

¶15

2 - Chief Engineer, National Highway Chhattisgarh Raipur C.G.

¶16

3 - Collector Balrampur Ramanujganj, District Balrampur Ramanujganj C.G.

¶17

4 - Chief Executive Engineer National Highway, New Bus Stand Ambikapur, District Surguja C.G.

¶18

5 - Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue)/ Land Acquisition Officer, Ramanujganj, District- Balrampur Ramanujganj C.G.

¶19

6 - Chief Executive Officer Janpad Panchayat Balrampur, District- Balrampur Ramanujganj C.G.

¶20

... Respondents

¶21

(Cause title, as taken from CIS system)

¶22

For Petitioners : Mr. Sushil Dubey, Advocate For Respondent No.1, 2 & 4 : Mr. Ramakant Mishra, Dy. Solicitor General

¶23

2

¶24

For State/Respondents No.3 & 5 : Mr. Gary Mukhopadhyay, Addl. Adv. General

¶25

(Hon’ble Shri Justice Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi)

¶26

Order on Board

¶27

19/01/2026

¶28

Heard.

¶29

This petition has been preferred by petitioners under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking following reliefs :-

¶30

“10.1 It is therefore prayed that, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to call for the entire records pertaining to the case of the petitioners.

¶31

10.2 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue a writ/order/direction in nature of mandamus whereby directing to the Respondent Authorities No.2 and 4 to complete the work of widening of NH 343 from the Rest House boundary to Collector Building covering approximately 1.5 Kilometers of NH road in Village Bhanaura affecting adversely to the Petitioners’ land strictly in accordance with the 3D alignment plan approved for the purpose.

¶32

10.3 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue a writ/order/direction in nature of mandamus whereby directing to the Respondent Authorities No. 2 and 4 to decide the pending representations made by the Petitioners strictly in accordance with law within a stipulated time.

¶33

10.4 That, any other relief/reliefs, which this Hon'ble Court may think fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case, with cost

¶34

3

¶35

of the petition, may also please be granted to the petitioners.”

¶36

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that for the purpose of widening of National Highway No.343 from Ambikapur to Ramanujganj, lands were acquired and a 3D Alignment was prepared, on the basis of which, boundary markers were fixed for construction of the road. However, the National Highway Authorities are not constructing road as per the said 3D Alignment at Village Bhanaura, District Balrampur from Larang Sai Chowk to Collectorate Boundary, where the road is being constructed as Gaurav Path. He further submits that since the alignment has been changed, the road is not being constructed over the acquired land; rather, it is being constructed over the land of petitioners. He next submits that the representation has been made to the respondent authorities, despite that, the same has not been addressed till date. He lastly submits that the petitioners are ready to file a fresh representation before the respondents No.2 & 4, therefore, he prays that the present petition may be disposed of with a direction to respondents No.2 and 4 to decide the same expeditiously.

¶37

Learned counsel appearing for the respective respondents would submit that if the petitioners file a fresh representation, the same shall be considered and decided in accordance with the applicable law/rules.

¶38

Having considered the limited grievance of the petitioners, without going into the merits of the case, this petition is disposed of by granting liberty to the petitioners to file a fresh representation along with a copy of this order before respondents No.2 & 4 within a period of 30 days from today for redressal of their grievance. It is further directed that upon filing of such representation, the same shall be decided by

¶39

4

¶40

respondents No.2 & 4 within a further period of 45 days from the date of filing of the representation by the petitioners in accordance with applicable law/rules.

¶41

Accordingly, the writ petition stands disposed of .

¶42

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

¶43

Sd/(Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi) Judge

¶44

Rukhsar

Ramsakal v. Union of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ramsakal v. Union of India

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

Nirmal Chand Kothari Vs Sangita Khandelwal

Hemant Kumar Verma Vs State of Chhattisgarh

M/S Escorts Limited Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Pankaj Dahire Vs Smt. Prerna Aahire

Shrimati Sangeeta Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Sukhiram Sahu Vs State of Chhattisgarh