Naresh Yadav Vs State of Chhattisgarh

1 - Naresh Yadav S/o Late Shri Ghasiya Ram Yadav, Aged About 44 Years R/o Village Sukalipali, Post Suloni, Police Station Malkharoda, Tahsil Adbhar, District Sakti (C.G.)

¶10

... Petitioner(s)

¶11

versus

¶12

1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Public Works Department, Government Of Chhattisgarh, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Naya Raipur, District -Raipur (C.G.)

¶13

2 - Collector Sakti, District Sakti (C.G.)

¶14

3 - Sub Divisional Office (Revenue), Malkharoda District Sakti (C.G.)

¶15

4 - Executive Engineer, Public Works Department, Champa Division, Champa, District Janjgir Champa (C.G.)

¶16

5 - Sub Division Officer, Public Works Department Sakti, District Sakti (C.G.)

¶17

6 - Tahsildar, Tahsil Adabhar, District Sakti (C.G.)

¶18

... Respondents

¶19

(Cause-title taken from the Case Information System)

¶20

2

¶21

For Petitioner :- Mr. Ramesh Nayak & Mr. Meghraj Dewangan, Advocates For State :- Mr. Amit Nayak, P.L.

¶22

SB- Hon'ble Shri Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Order On Board

¶23

21.07.2026

¶24

Following reliefs have been prayed by way of this petition:-

¶25

“10.1. That, the Hon'ble High Court may kindly be pleased to call for the entire records pertaining to the case of the petitioner for its kind perusal.

¶26

10.2. That, the Hon'ble High Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent authorities to provide the compensation to the petitioners under the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act 2013.

¶27

10.3 That, the Hon'ble High Court may kindly be pleased to stay the construction of road over the petitioners land without providing them compensation under the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act 2013.

¶28

3

¶29

10.4 That, any other relief, this Hon'ble Court deem fit and proper may also be granted to the petitioner, in the interest of justice.”

¶30

Facts of the case, in brief, are that the petitioner is the recorded owner of land bearing Khasra No. 67/5 situated at Village Sukalipali, Tahsil Adbhar, District Sakti. It is the case of the petitioner that the respondent authorities, while widening the Sakarra–Bhothiya road, have utilized a portion of the petitioner’s land without acquiring the same in accordance with law and without payment of compensation. The petitioner had earlier submitted representations before the concerned authorities, however, no effective action has been taken.

¶31

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the action of the respondents in utilizing the land without acquisition and without payment of compensation is arbitrary and violative of constitutional rights. It is further submitted that despite repeated representations, the authorities have failed to take any decision. Reliance has also been placed on an order passed by this Court in a similar matter wherein directions were issued to the Collector to consider the claim of compensation.

¶32

Learned State counsel, on the other hand, submits that appropriate instructions shall be obtained in the matter and the grievance of the petitioner can be examined by the competent authority in accordance with law.

¶33

4

¶34

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record.

¶35

Upon perusal of the record, this Court finds that though the right to property is no longer a fundamental right, it continues to be a constitutional right under Article 300A of the Constitution of India. Therefore, no person can be deprived of his property save by authority of law and without following due process, including payment of compensation. In the present case, the limited grievance of the petitioner is that his land has been utilized for widening of the Sakarra–Bhothiya road without acquisition and without compensation. Such a grievance requires factual verification, particularly with regard to demarcation of the land and the extent of utilization, which can appropriately be undertaken by the competent revenue authorities.

¶36

Accordingly, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, this petition is disposed of with the following directions: (i) The petitioner shall file an appropriate application before the competent authority for demarcation of the land in question, if not already filed. (ii) Respondent No.2/Collector, District Sakti, shall consider and decide the application after ensuring proper demarcation of the petitioner’s land with due notice to all concerned parties.(iii) The concerned revenue authorities shall cooperate in the process of demarcation and ensure that the exercise is carried out expeditiously. (iv) If, upon demarcation, it is

¶37

5

¶38

found that the land of the petitioner has been utilized for the construction/widening of the road, the respondent authorities shall take appropriate steps for acquisition of the land and ensure payment of compensation and other admissible benefits to the petitioner strictly in accordance with applicable law. (v) The entire exercise shall be completed within a period of 90 days from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.

¶39

With the aforesaid observations and directions, the writ petition stands disposed of.

¶40

No order as to costs.

¶41

(Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge

¶42

Vishakha

Naresh Yadav v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Naresh 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

Pranadhar Agrawal Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Tejprakash Chandrakar Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Hdfc Ergo General Insurance Company Limited Vs Ranmohan Maravi

Ayush College of Polytechnic Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Harilal Chouhan Vs Shubham @ Shobha Chouhan

Shri Rawatpura Sarkar Institute of Nursing Vs Indian Nursing Council