1 2025:CGHC:12002 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 1339 of 2025 1 - Durga Prasad S/o Bishram Aged About 52 Years R/o Village Dhurwakari, Tahsil Masturi, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Water Resources Department, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 2 - Collector, Bilaspur District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. 3 - Sub Divisional Officer-Cum-Land Acquisition Officer Masturi, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. 4 - Tahsildar, Masturi District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. 5 - Executive Engineer Kharang Water Resources Department, Bilaspur Division, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Yogesh Kumar Chandra, Advocate. For Respondent(s)/State : Mr. Satish Gupta, G.A. AMARDEEP CHOUBEY Digitally signed by AMARDEEP CHOUBEY Date: 2025.03.12 17:30:54 +0530 2 Hon’ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru, Judge Order on Board 11/03/2025 1. By the present writ petition, the petitioner is seeking a direction towards the respondent authorities for payment of compensation alleging that the petitioner is the owner of land bearing khasra No.85/87 admeasuring 1.00 acres situated at village Bharha, Tahsil Masturi, District Bilaspur and out of the said land 0.50 acres has been utilised and coming under the submerge of Sirsa Dam. 2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner by referring the letters dated 9-3-2021 (Annexure-P/3) and 9-6-2021 (Annexure-P/4) would submit that the respondent No.3 has intimated the respondent No.5 that 0.50 acres of land of the petitioner out of khasra No.85/87 submerged in the Sirsa Dam and requested the respondent No.5 for acquisition of the said land. He would submit that earlier the petitioner preferred WPC No.3198 of 2022 which was disposed of by this Court vide order dated 3-8-2023 with a direction to respondent No.2/Collector to consider the representation submitted by the petitioner on 11-7-2022. After the order of this Court, the respondent has rejected the claim of the petitioner by referring the inspection report dated 20-9-2023 stating that the land of the petitioner bearing khasra No.85/87 is not submerged in Sirsa Dam and, as such, the petitioner is not entitled for any compensation. Learned counsel would submit that the alleged 3 inspection report has been prepared behind the back of the petitioner. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the State, per contra, by referring the order dated 29-12-2023 and the inspection report submitted by the Sub Divisional Officer, Kharang Water Resources Sub Division, Bilaspur, would submit that in presence of the petitioner the land has been inspected and demarcated wherein it has been found that the land bearing khasra No.85/87 is not submerged in Sirsa Dam and therefore, the order impugned is just and proper and the petitioner is not entitled for any compensation towards the land, which is alleged to be utilised by the respondent authorities. 4. In rejoinder, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that on 9-3-2021 and 9-6-2021, the respondent No.3, on the basis of demarcation and panchnama, requested the respondent No.5 for acquisition of the petitioner’s land, as the same is submerged in Sirsa Dam and the petitioner is not able to do the agricultural work in the said land. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents. 6. Earlier in WPC No.3198 of 2022 this Court directed the respondent/Collector to pass necessary orders on the representation of the petitioner. Thereafter, the impugned order has been passed by the respondent No.5 pursuance to the inspection report dated 20-9-2023 in which it has been 4 observed that the land of the petitioner is not submerged in Sirsa Dam and hence the petitioner is not entitled for any compensation. 7. From perusal of the letters dated 9-3-2021 and 9-6-2021 it appears that the respondent No.3, on the basis of demarcation report, requested the respondent No.5, to take necessary steps for acquisition of the land of the petitioner, which is severely effected because of construction of dam. The inspection report, on the basis of which the respondent No. 5 has rejected the claim of the petitioner, has been prepared behind the back of the petitioner, as the petitioner contended that no proper opportunity of hearing was not afforded to her at the time of demarcation of the land and even the authorities have not followed the proper procedure. 8. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, the writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondent No.3 to demarcate the land of the petitioner afresh, after following the due process of law and in her presence, and thereafter pass a speaking and reasoned order, in accordance with law and on its own merits. During such demarcation, if it is found that the land of the petitioner is coming under the submerged area of Sirsa Dam, appropriate steps be taken for acquisition of the petitioner’s land and grant suitable compensation in favour of the petitioner. The entire exercise be completed within a period of sixty days from the date of receipt 5 of a copy of this order. 9. Accordingly, the present writ petition stands disposed of. SD/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) Judge Amardeep