1 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 1885 of 2021 1. Jaiprakash S/o Nathuram Aged About 57 Years R/o Village Bhalunara, Tahsil Kharsiya, District Raigarh Chhattisgarh. 2. Dilip Kumar S/o Nathuram Aged About 52 Years R/o Village Bhalunara, Tahsil Kharsiya, District Raigarh Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioner(s) versus 1. Union Of India Through Secretary, Department Of Railway New Delhi. 2. Collector District Raigarh Chhattisgarh. 3. Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue) Cum Land Acquisition Officer, Kharsiya, District Raigarh Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent(s) (Cause Title is taken from Case Information System) For Petitioners : None. For U.O.I. : Mr. Tushar Dhar Diwan, C.G.C. For State : Mr. Dashrath Prajapati, Panel Lawyer Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 17. 06.2025 1. Heard on admission. 2. By way of this petition, the petitioner has sought the following relief(s):- “10.1 That this Hon’ble Court be pleased to direct the respondent authorities to call the entire records pertaining to its case. 10.2 That, the Hon’ble Court may kind enough to issue an appropriate writ by directing the respondent no. 2 to decide the pending application u/s 64 of the Act filed by the petitioners within stipulated time. SIDDHANT TAMRAKAR Digitally signed by SIDDHANT TAMRAKAR Date: 2025.06.17 16:43:47 +0530 2 10.3 Any other relief or relief(s) which this Hon’ble Court may think proper in view of the facts and circumstances of the case may also kindly be granted.” 3. The land of the petitioners bearing survey No. 191/3 admeasuring 0.010 hectare out of 0.060 hectare was acquired by the respondents and award was passed on 04.09.2015. The petitioner moved an application under Section 64 of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 for enhancement of compensation before the Collector, Raigarh on 22.10.2018. It appears that application was not decided, therefore, the petitioner preferred this petition. 4. Mr. Tushar Dhar Diwan, C.G.C. appearing for respondent No. 1 would submit that the petitioner has efficacious alternative remedy to approach the Commissioner according to the provisions of Section 20F of the Railways Act. 5. Heard. 6. Taking into consideration the limited prayer made by the petitioners, the instant petition is disposed of with a direction to the concerned Collector to decide the application strictly in accordance with the law, if already not decided. 7. It is made clear that this Court has not made any observation on the merits of the case. 8. With the aforesaid observation(s), the instant petition is hereby disposed of, at admission stage itself. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge $iddhant