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

Kamal Dei vs State Of Chhattisgarh 23 Wpc/1865/2018 ... on 10 July, 2018

Author: Sanjay K. Agrawal

Bench: Sanjay K. Agrawal

                                                      1

                                                                                          NAFR

                         HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

                                           WPC No. 1854 of 2018

                1. Kamal Dei W/o Sukhdas, Aged About 80 Years R/o Gram Manganpur, Tahsil
                   Jagdalpur, District Bastar, Chhattisgarh.

                2. Shibo Ram, S/o Buduru Ram, Aged About 33 Years R/o Gram Manganpur,
                   Tahsil Jagdalpur, District Bastar, Chhattisgarh., District : Bastar(Jagdalpur),
                   Chhattisgarh                                                   ---- Petitioners

                                                   Versus

                1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Ministry Of Revenuye
                   Mahanadi Bhawan, Naya Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh., District :
                   Raipur, Chhattisgarh

                2. National Mineral Development Corporation Ltd., Through Its Chairman/
                   Director, Nagarnaar Steel Plant, Nagarnaar, District Bastar, Chhattisgarh.
                                                                             --- Respondents

For Petitioners : Mr. M. L. Sakat, Advocate. For Respondents/ State : Mr. Arun Sao, Dy. Advocate General.

Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal Order On Board 10/07/18

1. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would submit that petitioners' land have been acquired by respondent No. 2 for establishment of Steel Plant in lieu of which no rehabilitation has been granted to them as per the State rehabilitation policy.

2. Be that as it may, the petitioners are at liberty to make representation before the respondent No. 2 for redressal of their grievance within a period of two weeks from today that will be considered and decided by the said respondent authority within a period of two weeks thereafter.

3. With the aforesaid observation, the writ petition stands finally disposed of. No order as to cost(s).

sd/-

(Sanjay K. Agrawal) Judge Priyanka