Gangadhar Patel Vs State of Chhattisgarh

10.2 This Hon'ble court may kindly be pleased to issue an order directing the respondents to stop the digging and construction of road over the land of petitioner till payment of compensation to the petitioner in accordance with law. 10.3 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to grant any other relief, as it may deem fit.

Succinctly stated, the petitioner's case is that he, being the recorded holder of agricultural land bearing Khasra No. 414/5 & 264/4, Patwari Halka No. 22, Tahsil Pusour, challenges the high handed action of respondent No.4, who, on 5.12.2021 commenced unauthorized digging of the agricultural land of the petitioner for the Supa-Kotmara Road. Despite a representation filed by the petitioner in this regard before the Collector, Raigarh, the respondents continue to bypass the mandatory acquisition process. Such actions directly violate Article 300-A of the Constitution of India, which prohibits the deprivation of property without the authority of law. The petitioner seeks protection against this illegal encroachment and demands fair compensation prior to any construction. Hence, this Petition.

3

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondents commenced construction of the Supa-Kotmara road and in the process, the respondent authorities entered into the petitioner’s private property and started construction activities. He further submits that no acquisition proceedings have been initiated nor have any such proceedings, if any, been finalised. Hence, the petitioner approached this Court for relief. He submits that this Court, by way of an interim order dated 15.12.2021, interdicted the respondent authorities and directed them to cease all further construction activities over the petitioner’s property.

Per contra, learned counsel for the State submits that no construction has been undertaken upon the subject land. He further submits that the proposal referred by the petitioner was mere an administrative plan, which was never implemented. With the efflux of time, the said proposal has effectively lapsed, remaining nothing more than some paper transaction.

In view of the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties, nothing survives for adjudication in the present petition at this stage.

Accordingly, the Writ Petition stands disposed of. However, the petitioner would be at liberty to approach this Court afresh, by filing an appropriate petition, if any future exigency arises.

Sd/-

(Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge

Shyna Ajay

Gangadhar Patel v. State of Chhattisgarh