1 2025:CGHC:13625 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 1155 of 2025 Sunil Soni S/o Late Nathmal Soni Aged About 47 Years R/o Sarjoo Baghicha, C.B. Heights, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioner versus 1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through Chief Secretary, Mantralaya, New Raipur, Raipur Chhattisgarh. 2 - District Collector Bilaspur Chhattisgarh. 3 - Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue) Cum Land Acquisition Officer, Bilaspur Chhattisgarh. 4 - Tehsildar Sakri, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh. 5 - National Highways Authority of India Through Project Director, Project Implementation Unit, Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh. ... Respondents (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner : Mr. Sunil Kumar Soni, Advocate For State/Respondents No.1 to 4 : Ms. Nupoor Sonkar, Panel Lawyer For Respondent No.5 : Mr. Dhiraj Kumar Wankhede, Advocate Hon’ble Shri Amitendra Kishore Prasad, Judge Order on Board 21.03.2025 1. Heard Mr. Sunil Kumar Soni, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Ms. Nupoor Sonkar, learned Panel Lawyer, appearing for YOGESH TIWARI Digitally signed by YOGESH TIWARI Date: 2025.03.22 10:56:15 +0530 2 the State/respondents No.1 to 4 and Mr. Dhiraj Kumar Wankhede, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.5. 2. The instant writ petition is preferred by the petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking following relief(s):- “10.1 This Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to hold the Action on the part of the Respondent Authority in Withholding the Representation Dated 06.07.2020 is Arbitrary and Capricious. 10.2 This Hon’ble Court may Graciously be pleased direct Respondent No.03 to decide the pending Representation Dated 06.07.2020 immediately and scrupulously in accordance with law. 10.3 Any other relief, which this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper for the just adjudication of the case and protecting Constitutional Rights of the petitioner. 10.4 Cost of the petition.” 3. At the very outset, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he do not want to pursue this writ petition, however, he is seeking liberty to approach concerned authority in respect of his grievance stating that in spite of acquisition of the land of the petitioner, the compensation has not been awarded to him and as such, respondent authorities may be directed to decide his application/representation within a considerable time frame. 3 4. The prayer appears to be fair and reasonable. 5. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed as withdrawn. However, the petitioner is at liberty to approach before the respondent authorities and to pursue his application/representation in accordance with law. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Yogesh