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 3]

Chattisgarh High Court

Shakuntala Devi vs State Of Chhattisgarh 32 Wpc/1717/2017 ... on 20 March, 2019

Author: Prashant Kumar Mishra

Bench: Prashant Kumar Mishra

1                                                     WPC No. 964 of 2019


                                                                   NAFR

        HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

                        WPC No. 964 of 2019

        Shakuntala Devi, W/o Shri Bharat Lal, Aged About 54 Years,
        R/o     Village, Post And Police Station Sariya, Tahsil
        Sarangarh, District Raigarh Chhattisgarh.

                                                        ---- Petitioner

                                Versus

     1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department
        Of Revenue And Disaster Management, Ministry, Mahanadi
        Bhawan, Naya Raipur, Post Office And Police Station Rakhi,
        District Raipur Chhattisgarh.

     2. District Collector, Janjgir Champa, District Janjgir Champa
        Chhattisgarh.

     3. Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue), Dabhara, District Janjgir
        Champa Chhattisgarh.

     4. Tahsildar, Dabhra, District Janjgir Champa Chhattisgarh.

                                                    ---- Respondents

For Petitioners :- Shri Banhiman Roy, Advocate For Respondent-State :- Shri Anmol Sharma, PL Hon'ble Justice Mr. Prashant Kumar Mishra Order On Board 20/03/2019

1. In the present petition, it is contended that though the land of the petitioner was acquired and the compensation was paid, but the rehabilitation grant on the basis of the Notification 2 WPC No. 964 of 2019 dated 04.01.2017, which was published in an extraordinary Gazette of Chhattisgarh, has not been given. It is further contended that the petitioner has made necessary representation to the concerned authorities, therefore, the authorities may be directed to decide the representation.

2. Without entering into the merits of the case, considering the limited prayer, it is directed that if the petitioner make a fresh representation before the concerned Collector, the Collector may decide the same objectively within a period of 3 months.

3. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of.

Sd/-

(Prashant Kumar Mishra) Judge Ayushi