1 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 1453 of 2013 1 - Ranjeet Singh Virdi S/o Harcharan Singh Aged About 59 Years R/o Tagore Nagar, Tahil And Distt. Raipur, C.G. , Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner versus 1 - Raipur Development Authority Through Its Chief Executive Officer Rda Building Raipur, Distt. Raipur C.G. , Chhattisgarh 2 - State Of C.G. Through The Secretary, Environment And Urban Development And Urban Development Department Mahanadi Bhawan Naya Mantralaya Naya Raipur C.G. , District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh ---- Respondents For Petitioner : Shri Sangeet Kumar Kushwaha, Advocate. For Respondent No.1 : Shri Ashish Shrivastava, Senior Advocate alongwith Shri Udit Khatri and Shri Rahul Ambast, Advocates. For Respondent No.2 : Shri Vedant Shadangi, P.L. Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 12.02.2025 1. The petitioner has filed this petition seeking the following reliefs: “10.1) The Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondents to follow the mandate under the Land Acquisition Act to acquire the land bearing Khasra No.276, admeasuring 6.80 acres, situated at Tikarapara, Raipur, that of the petitioner and to make payment of necessary compensation to him. 10.2) The Hon'ble Court may further kindly be pleased to direct the respondents to provide 40% developed land to the petitioner at any location of the Scheme of Digitally signed by SMT NIRMALA RAO -2- the RDA as has been provided to the other land oustees whose lands were acquired. 10.3) Any other relief which this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper may also kindly be granted to the petitioner, in the interest of justice.” 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that respondent No.1 acquired land of the petitioner bearing Survey No.276, admeasuring 7.50 acres, situated at Tikrapara, Raipur and an agreement was also entered into between the parties. He would submit that there was an assurance to allot an alternative plot to the petitioner but till date, no decision has been taken. He would also contend that the appropriate compensation has not been paid. Therefore, a direction may be issued to respondent No.1 to provide either an alternative plot or grant just and proper compensation within a stipulated time. 3. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent No.1 would submit that due to the elections, the respondent authorities could not take an appropriate decision. He would submit that a decision would be taken by respondent No.1 expeditiously on claim of the petitioner. 4. Learned counsel for the State would submit that there is dispute between the petitioner and respondent No.1. 5. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents present on the record. 6. Taking into consideration the limited grievance raised by counsel for the petitioner, this petition is disposed of with a direction to 3 respondent No.1 to consider the claim of the petitioner, either to provide an alternative plot or to make payment of compensation, expeditiously and preferably within a period of 120 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 7. With the aforesaid observation(s), this petition is disposed of. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge Nimmi