1 2025:CGHC:32756 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 6267 of 2018 1 - Parmeshwar Prasad Tiwari S/o Shri Sidhharam Tiwari Aged About 51 Years R/o Jabda Para, Pathak Bagicha, Gali No.1, Sarkanda, Post And Tahsil- Bilaspur, P.S. Sarkanda, Revenue And Civil District- Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh., District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh 2 - Saurabh Tiwari S/o Parmeshwar Prasad Tiwari Aged About 21 Years R/o Jabda Para, Pathak Bagicha, Gali No.1, Sarkanda, Post And Tehsil- Bilaspur, P.S. Sarkanda, Revenue And Civil District- Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh., District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioners versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary,department Of Industries/revenue, Mahanadi Bhawan, Naya Raipur, Revenue And Civil District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - Collector Raigarh Revenue And Civil District- Raigarh, Chhattisgarh., District : Raigarh, Chhattisgarh 3 - Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue) Cum Land Acquisition Officer, Raigarh, Revenue And Civil District- Raigarh, Chhattisgarh., District : Raigarh, Chhattisgarh 4 - General Manager N.T.P.C. Lara Project Raigarh, Revenue And Civil District- Raigarh, Chhattisgarh., District : Raigarh, Chhattisgarh ---- Respondents For Petitioner : Shri Surfaraj Khan, Advocate. For Respondent/ State : Shri Pramod Shrivastava, Dy.G.A. For Respondent No.4 : Shri Prafull Bharat, Senior Advocate alongwith Shri Anuroop Panda, Advocate. SMT NIRMALA RAO -2- Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 14.07.2025 1. The petitioners have filed this petition seeking the following reliefs: “10.1 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue a suitable writ (s), direction (s), order (s), by Quashing the communication of decision dated 01/09/2018 (Annexure P-9) and further directing the respondents authorities to provide permanent employment to one member of the petitioner's family and to provide suitable salary/compensation as per clause 11.2.3 of the Chhattisgarh Resettlement and Rehabilitation Policy 2007 (as Amended 19/03/2010). 10.2 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to call all the records pertaining to the acquisition proceedings of your petitioner's lands from the respondent authorities. 10.3 Any other relief (s) in form of order or orders and/or direction (s) as your lordships may deem fit and proper.” 2. Learned counsel for the petitioners would fairly submit that the amount of compensation for the land acquisition has already been deposited with the Land Acquisition Officer. He would contend that the Resettlement and Rehabilitation Policy of the State has not been complied with by the respondent authorities. He would contend that respondent No.4 has not provided employment in accordance with the policy. He would submit that the respondents are under an obligation to constitute a committee, as per the 3 policy, to decide the claims of the petitioners. He would pray for a direction in this regard. 3. On the other hand, learned Senior Advocate would submit that while rejecting the representation made by the petitioners, observations were made that the petitioners may approach the Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue) or the Land Acquisition Officer for redressal of their grievances. He would submit that instead of approaching the said authority, the petitioners have filed this petition. He would contend that all the issues raised by the petitioners in the present petition may be considered and decided by the Competent Authority i.e. the Land Acquisition Officer. 4. Heard. 5. Taking into consideration the fact that the amount of compensation has already been deposited with the Land Acquisition Officer and the claims of the petitioners with regard to employment have not been considered either by State or by respondent No.4/ NTPC and further, liberty has been granted by the NTPC authorities in favour of the petitioners to approach the Land Acquisition Officer/ Sub- Divisional Officer (Revenue), at this juncture, this petition is disposed of reserving liberty in favour of the petitioners to approach the Land Acquisition Officer/ Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue). The authority concerned is directed to decide the claim of the petitioners strictly in accordance with the terms and -4- conditions of the award, preferably within a period of 120 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 6. With the aforesaid observations, this petition is disposed of. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge Nimmi