-1- 2025:CGHC:17612 NAFR HIGH COURT of CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 931 of 2013 1 - Ravindra Prakash Pujari And Ors S/o Lt. B.L. Puraji Aged About 73 Years Through Pujari S/o Lt. B.L. Pujari R/o Dpujari Niwas, M.G. Road, P.S. Modhopara, Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 2 - Ashok Pujari S/o Lt. B.L. Pujari Aged About 61 Years Niwas, M.G. Road, P.S. Modhapara, Raipur C.G. , District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 3 - Santosh Pujari S/o Lt. B.L. Pujari Aged About 59 Years R/o Puraji Niwas, M.G. Road Ps. Modhapara, Raipur C.G. , District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 4 - Rajesh Pujari S/o B.L. Pujari Aged About 49 Years Niwas, M.G. Road, P.S. Madhapara , Raipur C.G. , District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 5 - Laxmi Pujari S/o Lt. B.L. Pujari Aged About 51 Years R/o Pujari Niwas, M.G. Road, P.S. Moudhapara Raipur C.G. , District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 6 - Chandraprabha Gour Pujari S/o B.L. Pujari Aged About 60 Years Through The Power of Attorney Holder Ashok Pujari S/o Lt. B.L. Pujari Niwas M.G. Road, Ps. Modhapara Raipur C.G. , District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 7 - Uma Chahal Pujari0 D/o Rajendra Chahal D/o Lt. B.L. Pujari Through The Power of Attorney Holder Rajesh Pujari S/o Lt. B.L. Pujari Niwas M.G. Road P.S. Modhapara Raipur , District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State of Chhattisgarh, Through The Principal, Secretary, Department of Revenue And Disaster Management, Mantralaya Mahanadi Bhawan, Naya Raipur, P.S. Naya Raipur Distt. Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 2 - Collector Raipur D/o Raipur P.S. City Kotwali Distt. Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh. Digitally signed by NADIM MOHLE -2- 3 - Sub Divisional officer Reveneu D/o Raipur P.S City Kotwali, Distt. Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 4 - Municipal Corporation Raipur D/o Through Its Commisioner Nagar Nigam Head office Near Mahila Police Thana, Gandhi Udyan, P.S. Civil Lines Raipur C.G. , District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent(s) (Cause Title is taken from Case Information System) For Petitioners : Mr. Jitendra Pali, Advocate For State : Ms. Shailja Shukla, Deputy Government Advocates For Respondent No.4 : Mr. Siddhant Das, Advocate, holding the brief of Mr. Vivek Sharma, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 17.04.2025 1) The petitioners have filed this writ petition seeking the following relief(s):- “i. To kindly direct the respondent-authorities to notify 3.301 hectares land of the petitioners vide Khasra numbers 116/2, 116/15, 116/16, 116/17 116/18, 128/7, 176/3, 176/1 under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 within a period of 4 weeks and compensation may be provided by assessing the market value of the land in dispute as it prevails on the date of publication of the Section 4 notification and the land acquisition proceedings may be completed within a stipulated period. ii. To kindly grant all statutory benefits to the petitioner so that they may be entitled to pursue the statutory remedies available for further enhancement of compensation. iii. To kindly make any other order that may be deemed fit and just in the facts and circumstances of the case including awarding of the costs to the petitioner.” 2) Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the land of the petitioners bearing Survey Nos. 116/2, 116/15, 116/16, 116/17, 116/18, 128/7, -3- 176/3, and 176/1, admeasuring 0.445, 0.607, 0.550, 0.421, 0.761, 0.275, 0.137, and 0.105 hectares respectively, have been utilized for the construction of a road and drainage. He further contends that demarcation of the lands was conducted and directions were issued by the Collector and the Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue) to the Municipal Commissioner to submit a proposal for acquisition of the said land. However, no action has been taken till date. 3) On the other hand, Mr. Siddhant Das, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.4, submits that no specific direction was issued to the Municipal Commissioner, but as there is a demarcation report, appropriate action will be taken by the Municipal Corporation expeditiously. 4) Taking into consideration the submission made by Mr. Das, the present writ petition, at this juncture, is disposed of with a direction to respondent No.4 to take an appropriate decision on the claim of the petitioners, preferably within a period of 60 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, considering the recommendation made by the Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue) dated 16.04.2013. 5) With the aforesaid observation(s) and direction(s), this writ petition stands disposed of. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge NADIM