1 2025:CGHC:45903 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 1577 of 2019 * - Kranti Kumar Tamrakar S/o Late Nandu Prasad Tamrakar Aged About 81 Years R/o C/o Prakash Tamrakar, Bada, Bazar, Mungeli, Police Station City Kotwali, Mungeli, Tahsil And District Mungeli Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner Versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Collector, Mungeli, District : Mungeli, Chhattisgarh 2 - Collector, Mungeli, District : Mungeli, Chhattisgarh 3 - Sub Divisional Office Cum Land Acquisition Officer Mungeli, Tahsil And District Mungeli Chhattisgarh ... Respondents For Petitioner : Mr. G.P. Kurre, Advocate For Respondents/State : Mr. Shubham Bajpai, Panel Lawyer Hon’ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 09/09/2025 1. The petitioner has filed this petition seeking the following relief(s):- 10.1 This Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the Collector to make a reference to the Court for determine the compensation of the land of petitioner equal to the compensation determined for and enhance the compensation as asked by the petitioner. 10.2 That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondents decide the application of the petitioner. 10.3 Any appropriate writ, direction or order may also kindly be passed in favour of the petitioners, which this Hon’ble Court deems fit in the circumstances of the case. Digitally signed by RAMESH KUMAR VATTI Date: 2025.09.12 19:54:41 +0530 2 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Panel Lawyer for the State. 3. Considering the fact that the petitioner received amount of compensation assessed by the Land Acquisition Officer and thereafter approached the Collector under the provisions of Section 64 of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, wherein the Collector, Mungeli, District Mungeli considered the submissions made by the petitioner and recorded findings that the compensation for acquisition of the land of the petitioner was assessed treating it un-irrigated land and according to guidelines prevailing in the year 2012-13 and further amount of compensation was accepted by the petitioner without any protest, therefore, in opinion of this Court, there is no scope of interference. 4. The Collector while exercising power under Section 64 of the Act 2013 considered the reasons and grounds raised by the petitioner and passed the order, therefore, I do not find any good ground to interfere with the order passed by the Collector, Mungeli. 5. Consequently, the petition fails and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge vatti