Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 0, Cited by 7]

Chattisgarh High Court

Surya Prakash vs State Of Chhattisgarh 16 Wpc/1803/2019 ... on 17 May, 2019

                                           1

                  HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

                                WPC No. 1174 of 2019

    • Surya Prakash S/o Sukhiram Aged About 26 Years R/o Village Lokhandi, Tahsil
      Takhatpur, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh

                                                                       ---- Petitioner

                                        Versus

   1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Department Of Revenue Mantralaya,
      Mahanadi Bhawan, New Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh

   2. National Highway Authority Of India, Through Its Director, Project Execution
      Unit, Abhilasha Parisar, New Bus Stand Bilaspur District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh

   3. Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue ) Cum - Competent Authority National
      Highway, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh

   4. Collector, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh

                                                                    ---- Respondents

For Petitioner : Shri Jeet Patel, Advocate For Respondents/State : Shri Sumit Singh, PL For Respondent No.2 : Shri B. Gopa Kumar, ASG for the Union of India Hon'ble Shri Justice Goutam Bhaduri Order On Board 17/05/2019

1. Heard.

2. The instant petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking a direction to the respondent authorities for payment of rehabilitation grant on the basis of extraordinary gazette notification dated 4-1-2017 issued by the State of Chhattisgarh.

3. It is contended by learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that the petitioner has not been given the rehabilitation grant though the land of the 2 petitioner has been acquired for which he is entitled. Learned counsel further contended that the petitioner submits a representation before the concerned authority, however, the same has not been considered and the amount due to the petitioner has not been given.

4. Considering the facts situation of the case, without entering into the merits of the case, the writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the State to consider and decide representation of the petitioner within a period of three months with the speaking order whether the petitioner is entitled for rehabilitation grant or not.

5. The writ petition is disposed of.

Sd/-

Goutam Bhaduri Judge Ashu