Dhananiya Bai Vs State of Chhattisgarh

“ 10.1 The Petitioner file a Previously Petition for The Land Acquisition Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act,2013 Right to fair Compensation and Transparency in land acquisition Rehabilitation and resettlement Act (RFCTLARR).

¶23

10.2 The hon'ble court may be call for the entire record of WPC 3637/2023 Dhananiya Bai Versus State of Chhattisgarh.

¶24

10.3. The Petitioner representation dismiss on the baseless grounds The Project of Pradhan Mantri Gram Sadak Yojana Guideline Private Land not illegible for Compensation.

¶25

10.4 It is Prayed that This Hon'ble Court be please direct to state authority to initiated Proceeding for Land acquition under Provision of Right to fair Compensation and Transparency in land acquisition Rehabilitation and resettlement Act 2013.

¶26

PRAYER

¶27

Therefore, it is Prayed that this Hon'ble Court be Please direct to state authority to initiated proceeding for land acquisition under Provision of Right to fair Compensation and Transparency in land acquisition Rehabilitation and resettlement Act 2013, ”

¶28

3. By filing the present petition, the petitioner calls in question the action of the respondents in utilizing/encroaching upon the petitioner’s private land bearing Khasra No. 7/4, admeasuring 0.3280 hectares, situated at Village Ramger, Tehsil and District Mungeli, for construction of a road from Village Lalakapa to Police Line under the Pradhan Mantri Gram Sadak Yojana, without initiating acquisition proceedings and without payment of compensation. The petitioner further seeks a direction to the respondents to initiate proceedings under the provisions of the

¶29

3

¶30

Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (for short, ‘Act of 2013’) and to pay due compensation in accordance with law.

¶31

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner, along with her husband, is the owner of the aforesaid land and that the respondents have utilized the said private land for construction of the road without following the due process of law. It is submitted that no acquisition proceedings were ever initiated in respect of the petitioner’s land and no compensation has been paid, despite the land having been put to use for a public project. Learned counsel submits that such deprivation of property without authority of law is violative of Article 300A of the Constitution of India as well as the provisions of the Act of 2013. She further submits that the petitioner had earlier approached this Court by filing WPC No. 3637/2023, wherein this Court, vide order dated 25.08.2025, directed consideration of the petitioner’s grievance. Pursuant thereto, the petitioner submitted a representation before the competent authority; however, the same came to be rejected on the ground that no compensation is payable if land is used for a road under the Pradhan Mantri Gram Sadak Yojana. Learned counsel submits that such stand of the respondents is wholly unsustainable in law, particularly when the applicable guidelines themselves contemplate that where private land is required for construction of a rural road, the State is required to acquire the

¶32

4

¶33

land first and thereafter make it available for the project. It is thus contended that once the respondents have admittedly utilized the petitioner’s private land for the road project, they are under a legal obligation to acquire the land and pay compensation in accordance with the Act of 2013.

¶34

5. On the other hand, learned State counsel submits that the claim raised by the petitioner is misconceived and not maintainable in the present form. It is submitted that under the Pradhan Mantri Gram Sadak Yojana, there is no provision for grant of compensation in respect of land utilized for construction of a rural road. In this regard, learned State counsel would submit that Clause 2.6 of the circular/guidelines dated 20.01.2006 specifically provides that there is no provision for payment of compensation for land used in construction of rural roads under the scheme and, in exceptional cases where a very small portion of private land is required, the process of making such land available may be undertaken by exchange with Government land through the District Panchayat. It is thus contended that the governing policy itself contemplates exchange of land and not payment of compensation under the scheme. It is further submitted that, if the petitioner has any subsisting grievance with regard to the use of her land for construction of the road, the proper course available to her is to submit an appropriate application/representation before the competent authority, namely the State authority concerned or the Chief Executive Officer of the concerned Zila

¶35

5

¶36

Panchayat, seeking redressal of her grievance in terms of the aforesaid policy/guidelines. Learned State counsel submits that upon such application being filed, the same shall be considered by the competent authority in accordance with law.

¶37

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

¶38

7. Before proceeding further, it would be apposite to notice Clause 2.6 of the circular dated 20.01.2006, on which reliance has been placed by the State. The same is reproduced below:-

¶39

“अपवा�द - स्वारूप जहाँ�� नि�ज� भू� - स्वा�मि�यों� की� ज�� अत्योंमि�की की� हाँ� जहाँ�� शा�सकी�यों ज�� स� अदला� - बदला� की� ��ध्यों� स� ज�� उपलाब्ध कीरा�� की� की�यों#वा�हाँ� जिजला� प%चा�योंत द्वा�रा� की� ज�वा�गी� , निकीस� भू� हाँ�लात �* ग्रा��ण सड़की� की� लिलायों� �/आवाज� की� स्थि2नित �हाँ3 ब�� चा�निहाँयों� , क्यों�निकी इसकी� लिलायों� यों6ज�� * की6ई प्रा�वा�� हाँ3 हाँ� ।”

¶40

8. Considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case and, in particular, taking note of Clause 2.6 of the circular dated 20.01.2006, this Court is of the considered view that the controversy involved in the present petition would be appropriately addressed if the petitioner is relegated to avail the remedy contemplated under the applicable policy/guidelines by approaching the competent authority with a proper application. Since the grievance of the petitioner essentially relates to the use

¶41

6

¶42

of her land for construction of the road under the Pradhan Mantri Gram Sadak Yojana and the State has placed reliance upon the policy/guidelines governing such cases, this Court deems it appropriate to permit the petitioner to approach the competent authority for redressal of her grievance in accordance with law.

¶43

9. Accordingly, the petitioner is directed to file an appropriate application/representation, along with all supporting documents and a copy of this order, before the Chief Executive Officer, Zila Panchayat, Mungeli / other competent authority concerned, within a period of 15 days from today.

¶44

10. Upon such application being filed, the aforesaid authority shall consider and decide the same on its own merits, strictly in accordance with law and in the light of the applicable circulars/guidelines/policy governing the field, including Clause 2.6 of the circular dated 20.01.2006. The competent authority shall also afford due opportunity of hearing to the petitioner as well as to all other necessary/affected parties, and shall pass a reasoned and speaking order, expeditiously, preferably within a further period of 60 days from the date of receipt of such application.

¶45

11. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the claim of the petitioner and all questions of fact and law are left open to be considered by the competent authority in accordance with law.

¶46

7

¶47

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

¶48

13. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶49

Sd/Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge

¶50

Yogesh

Dhananiya Bai v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dhananiya Bai 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

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Smt. Hembati Shori Vs Girwar Soni

Dashru Gond (Since Dead) Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Shri Krishna Nagar Residents Association Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Hemant Sahu Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Pradeep Dilliwar Vs Sumit Dewangan

Principal, Vs Smt. Laxmi Tiwari