1 2025:CGHC:5244 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 2544 of 2019 1 - Sant Kumar Rai S/o Late Shivji Rai Aged About 56 Years R/o Lig- 57, Sada Colony, Jamnipali, Korba, Police Station Darri, Post Jamnipali, Tahsil Katghora, District Korba (C.G.), District : Korba, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through- The Secretary, Department Of Urban Administration, Mantralaya Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Naya Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - Commissioner Municipal Corporation Korba, District Korba (C.G.), District : Korba, Chhattisgarh ---- Respondents For Petitioner : Mr. Sushobhit Singh, Advocate. For Respondent/ State : Mr. Sanjeev Kumar Agrawal, P.L. For Respondent No.2 : Mr. Anuroop Panda, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 29.01.2025 1. The petitioner has filed this petition seeking following reliefs: “10.1. That, this Hon'ble may kindly be pleased to issue appropriate writ, order, direction and direct the respondent Authorities to perform their duties u/s 306 of the Municipal Corporation Act and grant appropriate compensation to the petitioner in lieu of acquisition of the petitioner's land. 10.2. That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to grant any other relief as it may deems fit and appropriate.” Digitally signed by SMT NIRMALA RAO -2- 2. Learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2 would submit that demarcation was conducted without its knowledge. He would contend that if the land of the petitioner has been used for construction of road, the petitioner would be compensated accordingly. He would submit that a direction may be issued to the State authorities to conduct a fresh demarcation in presence of the petitioner and respondent No.2 within a stipulated time. He would further contend that if the fresh demarcation reveals that the land of the petitioner has been used for the construction of road, the petitioner should be compensated. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that he has no objection if respondent No.2 is willing to pay compensation, provided that the demarcation shows his land has been used for the construction of road. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents present on the record. 5. Taking into consideration the above-stated facts, the petition is disposed of with a direction to the State authorities to conduct a demarcation in presence of the petitioner and respondent No.2, preferably, within a period of 60 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. All expenses related to the demarcation shall be borne by respondent No.2. The entire exercise shall be completed within a period of 60 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. If the demarcation reveals that the land of the petitioner has been used for the construction of road, respondent No.2 shall pay compensation strictly in accordance with law. 3 6. With the aforesaid observation(s), the petition is disposed of. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge Nimmi