Rambabu Uranv vs State Of Chhattisgarh
2022 Latest Caselaw 6680 Chatt

                                          1
                                                                            NAFR
            HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

                                   WPC No. 4540 of 2022

   1. Rambabu Uranv S/o Late Mangal Uranv, Aged About 29 Years R/o Uranv
      Mohalla, Post Chandrapur, District Sakti, Chhattisgarh (Serial No. 128 Of
      Compensation Chart)

   2. Pirlal Uraon, S/o Mansay, Aged About 57 Years R/o House No. 23,
      Chandrapur, District Sakti, Chhattisgarh (Serial No. 120 Of Compensation
      Chart)

                                                                    ---- Petitioners

                                       Versus

   1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary Department Of Revenue And
      Disaster Management Mahanadi Bhawan, New Raipur, District : Raipur,
      Chhattisgarh

   2. Collector Sakti, District Sakti, Chhattisgarh.

   3. Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue) Cum Land Acquisition Officer Dabhra,,
      District : Sakti, Chhattisgarh

   4. Executive Engineer Water Resource Department (Kalma Bairaj Project)
      Raigarh, District Raigarh, Chhattisgarh.                ---- Respondents

For Petitioner : Mr. Anuroop Panda Advocate.

For State                   : Mr. Rahul Jha, G.A.




                     Hon'ble Shri Justice P. Sam Koshy
                                Order On Board
09.11.2022

1. The relief(s) as claimed by the petitioners is for an appropriate

direction on application filed u/s 33 of the Right to Fair Compensation

and Transparency in Land Acquisition Rehabilitation and

Resettlement Act, 2013 before respondent No.3.

2. It is submitted that the award was passed on 22.11.2018 of Land

Acquisition proceedings and the application has been filed for

enhancement of the compensation, therefore, the petitioners

approached the authority by moving the application on 03.01.2019

which has not been decided till date. He further submits that the

Division Bench of this Court has laid down law for the purpose of

quantifying compensation, therefore, the authority may be directed to

take into account the law laid down by this Court along with other

guidelines prevailing for quantifying the compensation.

3. Learned State Counsel does not oppose the fact.

4. Considering the limited prayer, the petition is disposed of with a

direction to Respondents 2 & 3 to decide the application of the

petitioners under Section 33 of the Act, 2013 taking into consideration

the judgment laid down by the Court and the guidelines existing in this

record. The said application may be decided within a period of 90

days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

5. Accordingly, the petition stands disposed of.

6. Subject to petitioners furnishing photocopy of Annexure P/1, original

certified copy may be returned to the petitioners.

Sd/-

P. Sam Koshy) Judge Jyoti