Laxmi Prasad Chouhan vs State Of Chhattisgarh 36 Wpc/2362/2018 ... on 27 August, 2018

[Cites 0, Cited by 3]

Chattisgarh High Court

Laxmi Prasad Chouhan vs State Of Chhattisgarh 36 Wpc/2362/2018 ... on 27 August, 2018

Bench: Prashant Kumar Mishra

                                   1

                                                                NAFR

       HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

                        WPC No. 2354 of 2018

    Laxmi Prasad Chouhan S/o Late Fattulal Chouhan Aged About 52
     Years R/o Village Chodha, Tehsil Kharsia, District Raigarh
     Chhattisgarh.

                                                        ---- Petitioner

                                Versus

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

   2. The Collector , District Raigarh Chhattisgarh.

   3. Sub Divisional Officer ( Revenue ) And Land Acquisition Officer ,
      Kharsia , District Raigarh Chhattisgarh.

   4. Chief Engineer, National Highway, Public Works Department
      Raipur Chhattisgarh

                                                       ---- Respondent

For Petitioner Mr. Lalit Jangde, Advocate For Respondent /State Mr. AS Kachhwaha, Addl. Advocate General Order On Board By Hon'ble Mr. Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra 27/8/2018

1. Heard.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner's land has been used for construction of National Highway No.200 (Bilaspur-Urdawal) from 238.500 Km to 310.900 Km. However, no compensation has been paid to the petitioner. 2

3. Admittedly, the petitioner holds the subject land as Kotwar of the village. In the Jamabandi for the year 1924-25, the name of the petitioner's forefather is entered as holder of the land with caption "Sarkari Chowkidar", which means that the petitioner's forefather was holding the land as service land. In the Record of Right in Form B-1 of the year 2013-14 also, the petitioner's name is mentioned as holder of the land with a note "non- transferable" meaning thereby that the petitioner is not the owner of the land.

4. In view of the above, learned Additional Advocate General is right in his submission that the petitioner not being the owner of the land, is not entitled for any compensation.

5. However, if the petitioner moves the authorities for grant of service land of the equal area, which has been used for construction of road, out of the total service land held by him, the competent authority may consider his case in accordance with law.

6. The writ petition is dismissed subject to the above observations.

Sd/-

(Prashant Kumar Mishra) Judge Shyna

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Chattisgarh High Court