Chattisgarh High Court
Mahadev Gond vs State Of Chhattisgarh 13 Wpc/1615/2012 ... on 18 July, 2018
Bench: Ajay Kumar Tripathi, Pritinker Diwaker
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
WPC No. 1961 of 2018
• Mahadev Gond S/o Jhamlal Aged About 40 Years Caste Gond Tribe,
R/o Village Sidarpara, Sakreli, Tahsil Sakti District Janjgir Champa
Chhattisgarh
---- Petitioner
Versus
1. State of Chhattisgarh The Secretary, Public Works Department
Mantralaya Mahanadi Bhawan Naya Raipur District Raipur Chhattisgarh
2. State of Chhattisgarh The Secretary, Department Of Revenue
Mantralaya Mahanadi Bhawan Naya Raipur District Raipur Chhattisgarh
3. Chief Engineer Public Works Department (National Highway Division)
Raipur District Raipur Chhattisgarh
4. Executive Engineer Public Works Department National Highway Division
Bilaspur District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh
5. Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue) Sakti District Janjgir Champa
Chhattisgarh
6. Tahsildar Sakti, District Janjgir Champa Chhattisgarh
7. Collector District Janjgir Champa Chhattisgarh
8. Union of India Through Secretary Ministry of Road Transport and
Highways New Delhi
---- Respondents
For Petitioner : Shri Sushobhit Singh, Advocate For Respondent/State : Shri Prafull N. Bharat, Additional Advocate General For Respondent/UOI : Shri B. Gopa Kumar, Assistant Solicitor General Hon'ble Shri Ajay Kumar Tripathi, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Justice Pritinker Diwaker Order on Board Per, Ajay Kumar Tripathi, Chief Justice 18.07.2018
1. The grievance of the Petitioner raised in the present writ application is that even though his land has been notified to be acquired for construction of a National Highway, when it comes down to payment of compensation for the said acquisition, for some strange reasons, the authorities are using the Notification of the State Government to apply a multiplier of one instead of two, which is the Notification of the Central Government.
2
2. After having had a look at Annexure-P/1 as well as Annexure-P/4, there cannot be any argument that in terms of Notification (Annexure-P/4), the multiplier of two will be required to be used for calculation of compensation to the landholder, if the acquisition is made for the purposes of the Central Government which includes construction of National Highways.
3. In the writ application, the necessary notification which has been issued on behalf of the National Highway Authority has been annexed. The land of the Petitioner is for construction of the National Highway, therefore, the land acquisition authorities have an obligation to apply a multiplier of two in terms of the Notification No. S.O. 425(E) dated 09.02.2016 i.e. Annexure - P/4.
4. Writ application is allowed with the above direction.
Sd/- Sd/-
(Ajay Kumar Tripathi) (Pritinker Diwaker)
Chief Justice Judge
Chandra