1 / 3 2025:CGHC:30896 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 3307 of 2022 Satish Kumar Pandey, S/o Late Dukhoo Prasad Pandey Aged About 67 Years Present Resident of 191, Ward No. 14, Sithila Mandir, Sikola Bhata, Durg District Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner versus 1 – State of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Public Works Department, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Nava Raipur Atal Nagar, District Raipur Chhattisgarh 2 - Chief Engineer Public Works Department, Raipur District Raipur Chhattisgarh 3 - Collector District Kabirdham Chhattisgarh 4 - Chief Engineer Chhattisgarh Rural Road Development Agency, Civil Lines, Raipur District Raipur Chhattisgarh 5 - Executive Engineer Cum Member Secretary, Project Implementation Unit, CG Rural Road Development Agency, Kawardha, District Kabirdham Chhattisgarh 6 - Sub Divisional Officer (R) Cum Land Acquisition Officer, Pandariya, District Kabirdham Chhattisgarh 7 - Tahsildar Pandariya, District Kabirdham Chhattisgarh ... Respondents For Petitioner : Mr. Achyut Tiwari, Advocate For State : Mr. Praveen Das, Dy. AG ASHUTOSH MISHRA Digitally signed by ASHUTOSH MISHRA Date: 2025.07.09 18:06:47 +0530 2 / 3 (Hon’ble Shri Justice Arvind Kumar Verma) Order on Board 07/07/2025 1. The instant petition has been filed against the order dated 29/03/2022 and 31/01/2022 whereby the claim of the petitioner for compensation in lieu of acquisition of his land has been rejected. 2. The brief facts of the case as projected by the petitioner are that the petitioner is the registered owner of the land bearing Khasra No.275/land other Khasra numbers, out of which 0.32 acres land was taken by the respondents for construction of road without initiating acquisition proceedings and also without providing proper compensation to the petitioner. The petitioner has preferred various applications before various authorities, but till date the petitioner has not been given compensation and the respondents have denied to grant compensation to the petitioner. Hence this petition. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the action of the respondents in not providing compensation is arbitrary because the land of the petitioner was used at the time of construction of road, therefore, it is prayed that the respondent authorities may be directed to grant compensation to the petitioner. 4. Per contra, learned State opposes the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the 3 / 3 documents. 6. Considering the nature of grievance raised in the writ petition, it would be appropriate to dispose of the writ petition with direction to the concerned respondents to demarcate the land belonging to the petitioner to ascertain as to whether any part of his holding has been used for construction of road. If it is found that any part has been used, the concerned authority, who has constructed the road, shall move a proposal before the Collector for acquisition of land and thereafter, upon conclusion of the land acquisition proceedings, due compensation shall be paid to the petitioner. The demarcation shall be carried out within a period of 03 months from today and thereafter, acquisition proceedings shall be completed within a period of 01 Year, subject to verification of the fact that whether such land was donated by the petitioner or not. 7. It is ordered accordingly. SD/- SD/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) JUDGE ashu