Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Chhattisgarh · body

2025 DAILYLAW 33227 (CHH)

SMT. MAMTA TIWARI v. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

WPC/3474/2025 · 2025-07-07

Shri Arvind Kumar Verma

Transfer Petitionbody2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

1 2025:CGHC:31204 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 3474 of 2025 1 - Smt. Mamta Tiwari W/o Late Jayant Tiwari Aged About 53 Years R/o Kirodimal Colony, Raigarh, Tahsil And District - Raigarh (C.G.) 2 - Smt. Nilima Tiwari W/o Rajkumar Tiwari Aged About 54 Years R/o Kelo Vihar, Tahsil And District - Raigarh (C.G.) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Public Welfare Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Raipur (C.G.) 2 - The Collector Raigarh, District - Raigarh (C.G.) 3 - The Sub Divisional Officer Pusour, District - Raigarh (C.G.) 4 - National Thermal Power Corporation Ltd. (Ntpc) Talaipalli Coal Mining Project, Through Its General Manager, Tahsil - Pusour, District - Raigarh (C.G.) ----Respondents (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) For Petitioners : Mr. Hari Agrawal, Advocate For Respondent-State : Ms. Upasana Mehta, Dy. G.A. For Respondent No. 4 : Mr. Anuroop Panda, Advocate Hon’ble Shri Arvind Kumar Verma Order on Board 08/07/2025 1. Counsel for the Petitioner prays for the following relief(s):- (i)That, this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to call for the records of the case pertaining to the case of the petitioner. (ii) That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondents, to consider and decide the representation dated 07.09.2024 (Annexure P-4) of the Digitally signed by JYOTI JHA Date: 2025.07.09 14:04:59 +0530 2 petitioner in an outer time-limit framed by this Hon’ble Court. (iii) Any other relief which may be suitable in the facts and circumstances of the case, may also be granted. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner are recorded owners of agricultural land bearing Khasra No. 307/1, area 0.040 hectare, situated at village Ektal, Tahsil Pusaur, District Raigarh (C.G.) which they lawfully purchased by a registered sale deed dated 26.07.2013 from the previous owner for valid consideration. Subsequently, the said land was acquired for the railway line construction under NTPC Talaipalli Project. However, the names of the petitioners were illegally deleted from revenue records without notice or compensation and their title was questioned by the State and NTPC in Civil Suit No. 130A/2021, which was dismissed by the Civil Court on 14.03.2023 affirming the petitioners’ lawful ownership. Despite the finality of the judgment, the petitioners have not been paid compensation, not has possession of their land been restored. Aggrieved by this continuing deprivation, the petitioners submitted detailed representations to the Collector, Raigarh and Principal Secretary, Revenue Department Raipur requesting appropriate relief but till date the same has not been considered, therefore he prays for a direction to the concerned authorities to decide his representation dated 07.09.2024 and compensation be paid to the petitioner by the respondent authority. 3. Learned State Counsel submits that in view of the limited prayer made by the learned counsel for petitioner seeking direction to 3 respondent-authorities to consider the claim towards proper compensation, she is having no objection to the limited prayer and if the claim of the petitioner is pending, it will be considered in accordance with law. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 5. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case instead of keeping this petition pending, I find it appropriate to dispose of the same at this stage directing the petitioner to file a fresh representation within 15 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order and in the event filing of the representation, the respondent-authorities is directed to consider/decide the representation of the petitioner on its own merits as expeditiously as possible in accordance with law after hearing all the concerned parties. 6. It is made clear that this Court has not observed anything on the merits of the case. 7. With the aforesaid direction, the writ petition is disposed of. Sd/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) Judge Jyoti