1 2025:CGHC:15104 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 2627 of 2019 1 - Sadhu Das S/o Late Lakhan Das Manikpuri, Aged About 55 Years (Approxi), R/o Gram Kokadi, Post Office - Kokadi, Police Station And Tahsil - Baloda Bazar, District Baloda Bazar, Bhatapara Chhattisgarh., District : Balodabazar-Bhathapara, Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioner Versus 1 - The State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Collector Baloda Bazar Bhatapara Chhattisgarh., District : Balodabazar-Bhathapara, Chhattisgarh 2 - Tahsildar Tahsil - Baloda Bazar, District Baloda Bazar, Bhatapara Chhattisgarh., District : Balodabazar-Bhathapara, Chhattisgarh. ---- Respondents For Petitioner : None. For Respondent/State : Ms. Neelima Singh Thakur, P.L. Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 28.03.2025 1. Heard on admission. 2. None appears for the petitioner even when the case is taken up for hearing in the second round. SMT NIRMALA RAO -2- 3. The petitioner has filed this petition seeking the following relief(s):- “10.1 Kindly set aside the order passed by the respondent No.2 on 16.1.2019 hereby Annexure-P/1. 10.2 Kindly passed the order on favour of the petitioner that 14 Crores. (fourteen Crores) compensation must be granted for the petitioner by the respondents and additional pay remuneration Rs. 6000/- (Six Thousand) monthly to the petitioner by the respondents. 10.3 Kindly passed any other order which attracted to equity and natural Justice for the petitioner.” 4. The lands bearing Survey Nos. 100/2, 100/3, 100/4, admeasuring 2.023, 1.053 & 0.202 hectares, respectively situated at Village Kokadi, Tahsil Baloda-Bazar, District Baloda-Bazar, Bhatapara were allotted by the erstwhile State of M.P. to the father of the petitioner late Lakhan Das, who was a Kotwar. After the death of the late Lakhan Das, the above-stated land was transferred to his son i.e. the petitioner, who also became a Kotwar. It appears that the State Government took a decision on 16.1.2019 to pay wages of Rs.4,500/- to Kotwars, who could not get service land. The petitioner has challenged that order stating that the orders issued by the State Government are not applicable to him. The petitioner has also sought compensation to the tune of Rs.14 crores against the acquisition of the service land. 3 5. In this case, the petitioner has not placed on record any order of the acquisition of service land. It is also not demonstrated that the land of the petitioner has been acquired or he is being paid Rs.4,500/- in lieu of the service land. In a representation dated 14.12.2016, the petitioner had requested not to acquire the land. 6. Taking into consideration the fact that there is no adverse order against the petitioner, the petition appears to be misconceived and the same is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. 7. With the aforesaid observation(s), the petition is disposed of at the admission stage itself. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge Nimmi