1 2025:CGHC:18169 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 1477 of 2025 1 - Mitthulal Patel S/o Jhaduram Patel Aged About 70 Years R/o Village- Parasada, Tahsil- Hasoud, District- Sakti (C.G.) 2 - Markandeya Patel S/o Jhaduram Patel Aged About 65 Years R/o Village- Parasada, Tahsil- Hasoud, District- Sakti (C.G.) 3 - Ram Ji Patel S/o Jhaduram Patel Aged About 55 Years R/o Village- Parasada, Tahsil- Hasoud, District- Sakti (C.G.) 4 - Laxman Patel S/o Jhaduram Patel Aged About 49 Years R/o Village- Parasada, Tahsil- Hasoud, District- Sakti (C.G.) 5 - Rampyare Patel S/o Dhaniram Patel Aged About 47 Years R/o Village- Parasada, Tahsil- Hasoud, District- Sakti (C.G.) 6 - Bhagwat Patel S/o Lahru Patel Aged About 45 Years R/o Village- Parasada, Tahsil- Hasoud, District- Sakti (C.G.) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Department Of Revenue And Disaster Management, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Naya Raipur, Distt.- Raipur (C.G.) 2 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Water Resources Department, Mantralaya, Mahandi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Naya Raipur, Distt.- Raipur (C.G.) 3 - Collector Sakti, Distt.- Sakti (C.G.) RAVI SHANKAR MANDAVI Digitally signed by RAVI SHANKAR MANDAVI Date: 2025.04.24 14:09:03 +0530 2 4 - Sub Divisional Officer (R)/ Land Acquisition Officer Sakti, Distt.- Sakti (C.G.) 5 - Executive Engineer Water Resources Department, Division Janjgir H/q At Champa, Distt. Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) For Petitioners : Mr. F.S. Khare, Advocate For State/Respondent/s : Mr. Shreyansh Mehta, Panel Lawyer Hon'ble Shri Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Order on Board 22/04/2025 1. Heard Mr. F.S. Khare, learned counsel for the petitioners as well as Mr. Shreyansh Mehta, learned Panel Lawyer for the State/respondent/s. 2. Grievance raised by the petitioner in this writ petition is of non- initiation of proceeding of acquisition of land though land of the petitioner has come within the submerged area of Mironi Barrage Stop Dam. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is the owner of agricultural land in Village Parasada, P.H.N. 34, R.N.M. & Up-Tehsil Hasoud District Sakti. For construction of Mironi Stop Dam, land of the petitioner is also coming within the submerged area, however, the respondent -authority have not initiated any proceedings for acquisition of land by granting compensation or providing any other alternate land. Petitioner submitted 3 representation /application before the SDO as also before the Collector based upon which the report was called from the Revenue Inspector and as per report the Revenue Inspector has specifically mentioned that land of the petitioner is within the submerged area. On the basis of the above report the respondent No.4 directed to the respondent No.5 vide letter dated 16.03.2021 (Annexure P/3) to take necessary steps for payment of compensation to the petitioners. 4. Thereafter the petitioner again submitted representation before the respondents on 27.12.2024 for compensation against his land, however, the respondent authorities have not taken any action on it. He submits that as representation submitted by the petitioner is pending considering, a direction be issued to respondent No.3/Collector to take decision at the earliest within specified time. 5. Learned counsel for the State submits that in view of limited prayer made by learned counsel for the petitioner seeking direction to respondent No.3 to decide pending representation, he is having no objection. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents enclosed along with the petition. 7. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case submission of learned counsel for the petitioner and also the report submitted by Revenue Inspector mentioning that the land of the petitioner is within submerged area due to the construction of Mironi Stop Dam 4 and representation submitted by the petitioner is still pending consideration before respondent No.3 as stated by learned counsel for the petitioner, this writ petition at this stage is disposed of directing respondent No.3/Collector to take appropriate decision on the representation submitted by the petitioner in accordance with law, expeditiously, preferably within a period of 3 months from the date of receipt order of this Court. 8. With the aforesaid observation(s) and direction(s), this writ petition stands disposed of. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Ravi Mandavi