1 2025:CGHC:47976 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR WPC No. 534 of 2025 Smt. Reeta Baid W/o Sunil Kumar Baid Aged About 55 Years R/o Sardar Patel Ward Ward, Mungeli, Tahsil And District- Mungeli (C.G.) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Urban Administration And Development Department, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhavan, Atal Nagar Nawa Raipur (C.G.) 2 - Joint Director Regional Office Urban Administration And Development Department, Bilaspur, District- Bilaspur (C.G.) 3 - Collector Bilaspur District- Bilaspur (C.G.) 4 - Nagar Panchayat Kota Through- Chief Municipal Officer Kota, District- Bilaspur (C.G.) ---- Respondents For Petitioner : Mr. Devesh G. Kela, Advocate For State-respondent : Mr. Soumitra Kesharwani, PL For Respondent No.4 : Mr. Satish Gupta, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Arvind Kumar Verma Order on Board 18/09/2025 VASANT KUMAR Digitally signed by VASANT KUMAR Date: 2025.09.18 17:38:23 +0530 2 1. By way of this petition, petitioner sought following relief(s) : “10.1 10.1. To call for the records of the case for the kind perusal of this Hon'ble Court. 10.2 To issue an appropriate writ or order and direct the respondents to comply the provisions of Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act 2013 with respect to land of the petitioner and thereafter determination of compensation, solatium of acquired land and make payment with interest from the date of construction of C.C road @ 18% per annum. 10.3 That the petitioners land is being used by construction of C.C. road by the Respondent No.4 and therefore cost of Rs. 1,00,000/- be awarded to petitioner. 10.4 Any other relief / reliefs which may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case, may also be allowed.” 2. At the outset, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner has made representations before respondent No.4 on 04.04.2024 (Annexure P-5) and 16.05.2024 (Annexure P-6) and the petitioner wants to decide the same in accordance with rules, regulations and law. 3. Learned State counsel contended that looking to the limited prayer made by the petitioner she has no objection. 3 4. Considering the facts of the case and submission made by counsel for the respective parties, this writ petition is disposed of directing to respondent No.4 to consider and decide the representations made be the petitioner on 04.04.2024 (Annexure P-5) and 16.05.2024 (Annexure P-6) expeditiously preferably within a period of ‘120 days’ from the date of receipt of copy of this order, in accordance with rules, regulations and law. 5. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case. 6. With the aforesaid direction, this petition stands disposed of. Sd/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) Judge Vasant