1 2025:CGHC:17167 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 229 of 2023 Dilip Kumar Sagarvanshi, S/o - Narad Sagarvanshi Aged About 63 Years R/o - Subhash Nagar, Durg, Tehsil And District - Durg, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner versus 1 - The Collector, Durg, District - Durg, Chhattisgarh 2 - Sub- Divisional Officer (Revenue) Cum Land Acquisition Officer Durg, District - Durg, Chhattisgarh 3 - Executive Engineer Public Works Department, Region - Durg, District - Durg, Chhattisgarh ... Respondents (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner : Mr. Shikhar Bakhtiyar, Advocate For Respondents-State : Mr. Satish Gupta, Government Advocate Hon’ble Shri Amitendra Kishore Prasad, Judge Order on Board 15.04.2025 1 Heard Mr. Shikhar Bakhtiyar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Satish Gupta, learned Government Advocate appearing for the State. 2 The instant petition is preferred by the petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution with the following relief(s):- YOGESH TIWARI Digitally signed by YOGESH TIWARI Date: 2025.04.15 18:09:41 +0530 2 “10.1 In view of the above facts and grounds this Hon'ble court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent authorities to consider the matter of Petitioner and for the Rate of the Petitioner's land is on higher side as per the other lands which are near by the Petitioner's Land. 10.2 That this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the Respondent Authority to valuate the rate of the Petitioner's Land as per the appropriate Authority. 10.3 That any other relief which this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper may also be granted in favor of the petitioner safeguarding his interest.” 3 It has been submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that though this petition has been filed seeking a direction to the respondent authorities to pay the compensation as the land of the petitioner has been acquired, but till date, the compensation has not been paid to him. He further submits that the possession of the land has not been taken by the authorities, as such, he does not want to pursue this petition. However, he is seeking liberty to the effect that if any exigency arises, he will be at liberty to file a fresh petition. 4 On the other hand, learned State counsel fairly submits that by efflux of time, requirement of land of the petitioner is no more, as such, they have not taken the land of the petitioner. 3 5 I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents annexed with the petition. 6 Considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case, particularly considering the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner, instant petition is dismissed as not pressed. However, the petitioner is at liberty to approach this Court again, if any exigency arises. Sd/-/- - (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Yogesh