Disposed

Mahip Kumar v. State of Chhattisgarh

Chhattisgarh HC14 Sept 2026WPC/4658/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners sought a writ directing the State to conduct spot inspection and pay compensation for lands submerged by the Ghatoi Dam. The court disposed of the petition, granting liberty to apply to authorities for inspection and compensation, and directed authorities to complete proceedings within 90 days.

What did the court decide?

Petitioners granted liberty to file an application with authorities within 15 days for spot inspection; authorities directed to inspect within 45 days and conclude compensation within 90 days.

Mahip Kumar Vs State of Chhattisgarh — Land Acquisition | Chhattisgarh HC (2026)

CGHC010355092026

2026:CGHC:40160

NAFR

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶6

WPC No. 4658 of 2026

¶7

1 - Mahip Kumar S/o Netram Aged About 73 Years R/o VillageKabaripali, Tehsil- Dabhara, District- Sakti, Chhattisgarh

¶8

2 - Ramesh @ Parmanand S/o Keshav Prasad Patel Aged About 65 Years R/o Village- Kabaripali, Tehsil- Dabhara, District- Sakti, Chhattisgarh

¶9

3 - Jaitram S/o Munuram Aged About 60 Years R/o Village- Kabaripali, Tehsil- Dabhara, District- Sakti, Chhattisgarh

¶10

Digitally AKHILESH signed by KUMAR AKHILESH DEWANGAN KUMAR DEWANGAN

¶11

4 - Banmali Yadav S/o Bhadgud Aged About 71 Years R/o VillageKabaripali, Tehsil- Dabhara, District- Sakti, Chhattisgarh

¶12

5 - Devanand Patel S/o Badkadau Aged About 69 Years R/o VillageKabaripali, Tehsil- Dabhara, District- Sakti, Chhattisgarh

¶13

6 - Pokhraj Singh S/o Sundar Mani Aged About 69 Years R/o VillageKabaripali, Tehsil- Dabhara, District- Sakti, Chhattisgarh

¶14

7 - Shobha Ram @ Nanhu S/o Mohan Aged About 65 Years R/o VillageKabaripali, Tehsil- Dabhara, District- Sakti, Chhattisgarh

¶15

8 - Ghasiram S/o Harichand Aged About 60 Years R/o VillageKabaripali, Tehsil- Dabhara, District- Sakti, Chhattisgarh

¶16

¶17

9 - Dayashankar Patel S/o Chudamani Aged About 42 Years R/o Village- Kabaripali, Tehsil- Dabhara, District- Sakti, Chhattisgarh

¶18

10 - Ramkrishna S/o Chandulal Aged About 51 Years R/o VillageKabaripali, Tehsil- Dabhara, District- Sakti, Chhattisgarh

¶19

11 - Acchey Ram S/o Kuber Aged About 80 Years R/o VillageKabaripali, Tehsil- Dabhara, District- Sakti, Chhattisgarh

¶20

12 - Bansidas S/o Shoukidas Aged About 49 Years R/o Village- Komo, Tehsil- Dabhara, District- Sakti, Chhattisgarh

¶21

... Petitioner(s)

¶22

versus

¶23

1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary Department Of Revenue And Disaster Management, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhavan, Atal Nagar, New Raipur, Distt.- Raipur Chhattisgarh

¶24

2 - Secretary Department Of Water Resource, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhavan, Atal Nagar, New Raipur, Distt. Raipur Chhattisgarh

¶25

3 - Collector Sakti District- Sakti, Chhattisgarh

¶26

4 - Sub Divisional Officer (R) Cum Land Acquisition Officer Dabhara District- Sakti, Chhattisgarh

¶27

5 - Engineer In Chief Water Resource Department Shivnath Bhawan New Raipur District- Raipur Chhattisgarh

¶28

6 - Executive Engineer Water Resource Department Janjgir Division Head Office At Champa, District Janjgir Champa, Chhattisgarh

¶29

¶30

... Respondent(s)

¶31

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Pranjal Agrawal, Advocate. For Respondent(s) : Mr. Shobhit Mishra, Dy. G.A.

¶32

Hon'ble Mr. Amitendra Kishore Prasad, Judge Order on Board

¶33

15.09.2026

¶34

Heard Mr. Pranjal Agrawal, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. Shobhit Mishra, learned Deputy Government Advocate, appearing for respondents/State.

¶35

The petitioner has filed this present petition praying for following relief:-

¶36

“10.1 That this Hon'ble court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondents for conducting spot inspection and once it is found that the land of the petitioners are coming under submergence they may be directed to initiate acquisition proceeding as per provision of Act, 2013 and conclude the same by paying compensation within time frame.

¶37

10.2 That this Hon'ble court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent for also granting interest under Section 80 of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 from the date of dispossession.

¶38

10.3 That this Hon'ble court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent for also granting

¶39

¶40

additional compensation under Section 30(3) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 from the date of dispossession

¶41

10.4 Any other relief, which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper, may also be passed in favour of the petitioners.”

¶42

Facts of the case, as projected, are that the petitioners are the owners/joint owners of various parcels of land situated at Village Kabaripali and Village Kekrabhat, Tehsil Dabhra, District Sakti, Chhattisgarh, bearing different khasra numbers and measuring the areas mentioned in the petition. A portion of the aforesaid lands is allegedly coming under submergence on account of the construction of Ghatoi Dam by the Water Resources Department.

¶43

The petitioners submitted representations before the SubDivisional Officer (Revenue)-cum-Land Acquisition Officer, Dabhra, District Sakti, seeking spot inspection of the affected lands and payment of compensation for the land likely to be submerged. However, despite submission of the representations, no spot inspection has been conducted and no decision has been taken on the petitioners' claim for compensation. It is further the case of the petitioners that similarly situated landowners have already been compensated after spot inspection was conducted by the officials of the Revenue Department and the Water Resources Department in respect of their lands submerged on

¶44

¶45

account of Ghatoi Dam. Aggrieved by the inaction of the respondent authorities in conducting spot inspection and determining and paying compensation, the petitioners have approached this Court seeking appropriate relief.

¶46

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the right to property is a constitutional right guaranteed under Article 300-A of the Constitution of India, and no person can be deprived of his property except by authority of law. In the present case, the lands of the petitioners are coming under submergence on account of the construction of Ghatoi Dam by the Water Resources Department, due to which the petitioners are unable to cultivate their lands and raise crops. The petitioners, being poor villagers and agriculturists, are suffering financial loss, whereas their grievance has remained unredressed by the respondent authorities. He further submits that the action and inaction of the respondents are discriminatory, inasmuch as similarly situated affected landowners in the same Ghatoi Dam project have been subjected to spot inspection by the team of the Revenue Department and the Water Resources Department and have been paid compensation, whereas no spot inspection has been conducted in respect of the petitioners' lands and no compensation has been paid to them. It is submitted that spot inspections in respect of similarly situated persons were conducted on 07.12.2021 and 07.08.2026. The construction of Ghatoi Dam was commenced in the year 1979 and, as the

¶47

¶48

possession of the petitioners' lands was taken in the year 1979, the petitioners are also entitled to claim interest under Section 80 of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, in accordance with law. He also submits that in an identical matter, this Hon'ble Court has passed an order dated 17.04.2026 in W.P. (C) No. 1792 of 2026 , which is relied upon by the petitioners. The petitioners further rely upon the order dated 03.01.2022 passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Gayabai Digambar Puri (Died) through LRs. v. The Executive Engineer & Others , particularly with regard to entitlement to interest from the date of dispossession. In view of the aforesaid facts and the treatment accorded to similarly situated persons, the petitioners are entitled to appropriate compensation, along with interest as permissible under law, after conducting spot inspection and determining the compensation payable in respect of their submerged lands.

¶49

Per contra, learned State counsel submits that the petition may be disposed of with appropriate direction, however, if the petitioner is seeking indulgence of this Court, then he should file appropriate application before the authorities concerned.

¶50

Having considered the limited prayer made by learned counsel for the petitioners, without entering into the merits of the case, this petition is disposed of, granting liberty to the petitioners to file a fresh application before the respondent authorities along with all

¶51

¶52

necessary documents and a copy of this order, within a period of 15 days from today.

¶53

In the eventuality of filing such application by the petitioners, the respondent authorities are directed to conduct spot inspection/demarcation of the subject land of the petitioners within a further period of 45 days from the date of filing of such application, after following due process of law, and if it is found that the land of the petitioners has come under submergence/within the affected area of the said Dam, then appropriate proceedings be initiated for grant of compensation to the petitioners.

¶54

The aforesaid proceedings with regard to acquisition and grant of compensation be concluded within a further period of 90 days from the date of demarcation of aforesaid land of petitioners.

¶55

Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge

¶56

Akhil

Mahip Kumar v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mahip Kumar 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases