1 2025:CGHC:14494 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 1110 of 2023 1 - Binda Prasad Manhar S/o Parmanand Aged About 67 Years R/o Village Bhuigaon, R.I.C. Rahod, Tahsil Pamgarh, District - Janjgir- Champa (C.G.) ... Petitioner versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of Irrigation And Water Recources, Mahanadi Bhavan, Mantralaya, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur, District - Raipur (C.G.) 2 - Collector Janjgir, District - Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) 3 - Sub Divisional Officer (R) Pamgarh, District - Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) 4 - Sub Divisional Officer (R) Branch Canal, Sub Division-8, Loharsi, District - Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) 5 - Executive Engineer Hasdeo Canal (W/m) Water Resources Divison, Janjgir, District - Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner : Mr. N. K. Chatterjee, Advocate For State/Respondent/s : Mr. Anmol Sharma, Panel Lawyer Hon'ble Shri Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Order on Board RAVI SHANKAR MANDAVI Digitally signed by RAVI SHANKAR MANDAVI Date: 2025.04.08 11:12:12 +0530 2 26/03/2025 1. Heard Mr. N. K. Chatterjee, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Mr. Anmol Sharma, learned Panel Lawyer for the State/respondent/s. 2. By way of ther writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for following reliefs: “10.1.That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to allow the writ petition filed by the petitioner and be pleased to make an order to grant the compensation alongwith the benefits of the Resettlement and Rehabilitation alongwith interest @ 12% per annum from the date of the acquisition of the land until the final payment of the compensation together will all other necessary benefits which the petitioner is legally entitled to get alongwith the benefits of the Rehabilitation and Resettlement and the other benefit and direction be given to he concerned respondents. 10.2. Any other relief which this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper may also be passed in favour of the petitioners together with cost of the petition.” 3. Grievance of the Petitioner is the alleged non-payment of compensation in respect of their private property which stood acquired by the State Government for the purpose of construction of Minor-2 and Minor-3 Canal under the Hasdeo-Bango Pariyojna, Bhuigaon. The said construction of canal is said to have taken place somewhere in the year 1983-84. 4. Contention of the Petitioner before this Court is that none of person like petitioner have been paid any compensation in respect of their land which stood acquired. The details of the property 3 which is owned by each of the Petitioner is mentioned in paragraph 8.2 of the Writ Petition, which for avoiding contradictions is being avoided by this Court from being reproduced in this Order. 5. Learned State Counsel, on the previous date of hearing, took time to seek instructions from the Department. Upon instructions, learned State Counsel submits that, in most of the cases, the name of the Petitioners could not be detected as land owner from the revenue records and, in all probability, the persons whose name is reflected as land owner, might have already received compensation, which would be a matter of scrutiny and verification. 6. Be that as it may, the factual matrix of the case is that of the land of the Petitioner being acquired by the State Government for the purpose of construction of Minor-2 and Minor-3 Canal under the Hasdeo-Bango Pariyojna, Bhuigaon. 7. This Court is of the opinion that the instant Writ Petition can be and is accordingly disposed of, at this juncture, directing the Petitioner to appear before Respondents No.2 to 4 along with a fresh claim application. The Petitioner should give detailed information in respect of the land which they owned and which stood acquired/affected along with relevant title documents, if any, available with the Petitioner. They should also provide with 4 documents to show the relationship, if any, with the original title holder reflected in the revenue records as the land owner. 8. Upon such claim application being made by the Petitioner before Respondents No.2 to 4, the same shall be immediately processed by the Respondent authorities and, after thorough scrutiny and verification of the claim of the Petitioner both in respect of alleged acquisition or whether the Petitioner was affected person in the course of construction of the said Minor-2 and Minor-3 Canal, appropriate decision shall be taken strictly in accordance with law, within an outer limit of six months' period. The Respondent authorities in the course of taking decision shall also deal with the consequential steps that they are required to take in accordance with the decision taken. 9. With aforesaid direction/observation, the instant Writ Petition stand disposed of. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Ravi Mandavi