1 2025:CGHC:59361 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 6369 of 2025 1 - Nityanand Puri S/o Late Purushottam Puri Aged About 55 Years (Sr. No. 7 Of The Compensation Chart Is Relevant For This Petitioner And In Compensation Chart Petitioners Father Name Is Mentioned And He Is Dead), R/o Village Mahadevpali, Tehsil Dabhara, District Sakti C.G. 2 - Khageshwar Puri S/o Bhuvneshwar Puri Aged About 64 Years (Sr. No. 8 Of The Compensation Chart Is Relevant For This Petitioner), R/o Village Mahadevpali, Tehsil Dabhara, District Sakti C.G. 3 - Gajanand Puri S/o Shambhu Puri Aged About 65 Years (Sr. No. 16 Of The Compensation Chart Is Relevant For This Petitioner), R/o Village Mahadevpali, Tehsil Dabhara, District Sakti C.G. 4 - Sadanand Puri @ Vijayshankar Puri S/o Shambhu Puri Aged About 67 Years (Sr. No. 17 Of The Compensation Chart Is Relevant For This Petitioner), R/o Village Mahadevpali, Tehsil Dabhara, District Sakti C.G. 5 - Anand S/o Ghasiya Aged About 62 Years (Sr. No. 19 Of The Compensation Chart Is Relevant For This Petitioner), R/o Village Mahadevpali, Tehsil Dabhara, District Sakti C.G. 6 - Dhaneshwar Puri S/o Late Narsingh Puri Aged About 75 Years (Sr. No. 28 Of The Compensation Chart Is Relevant For This Petitioner And In Compensation Chart Petitioners Wife Name Is Mentioned And She Is Dead), R/o Village Mahadevpali, Tehsil Dabhara, District Sakti C.G. 7 - Meena Bai W/o Harishankar Aged About 67 Years (Sr. No. 31 Of The Compensation Chart Is Relevant For This Petitioner), R/o Village Mahadevpali, Tehsil Dabhara, District Sakti C.G. 2 ... Petitioners Versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary Department Of Revenue And Disaster Management Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Raipur, District Raipur C.G.] 2 - Secretary, Department Of Water Resource Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Raipur, District Raipur C.G. 3 - Collector Sakti, District Sakti C.G. 4 - Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue) Cum Land Acquisition Officer Dabhra, District Sakti C.G. 5 - Executive Engineer, Water Resource Department (Kalma Bairaj) Raigarh Division, District Raigarh C.G. ... Respondents For Petitioners : Ms. Palak Jindal, Advocate For Respondents/State : Ms. Poorva Tiwari, Panel Lawyer SB: Hon'ble Shri Parth Prateem Sahu, Judge ORDER ON BOARD 08 /12/2025 1. The petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking following reliefs:- “10.1 That, the Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the resondents for deciding the representation under Section 80 of the Act, 2013 on total compensation in light of order passed in as per law laid down by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of ‘Gayabai Diamgber Puri (Died) through LR’s Vs. The Executive Engineer and Ors. Civil Appeal (Diary No. 17566 of 2020) dated 03.01.2022’ within a time frame of 03 months. 10.2 Any other relief, which this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper, may also be passed in favour of the petitioner.” 2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submit that petitioners were having the land recorded in their names (i.e. Petitioner No. 1 owns land bearing Khasra No. 6/1, 11, 57/1, 115/1, 146/1, 150/1, Petitioner No. 2 owns land bearing Khasra No. 6/2, 7, 57/2, 115/2, 146/2, 150/2, Petitioner No. 3 3 owns land bearing Khasra No. 25/5, 14/1, 52/3, 63/3, Petitioner No. 4 owns land bearing Khasra No. 25/7, 14/2, 52/4, 63/4, Petitioner No. 5 owns land bearing Khasra No. 16, Petitioner No. 6 owns land bearing Khasra No. 63/1 and Petitioner No. 7 owns land bearing Khasra No. 137). The land of the petitioners were subject matter of acquisition for the purpose of construction of Kalma Barrage. The land acquisition proceedings were initiated and the award was also passed. 3. It is the contention of the petitioner that the possession of the lands of the petitioners were taken much earlier before passing of the award. However, the interest has not been awarded to them from the date of taking possession and therefore, they have filed this writ petition seeking aforementioned reliefs. It is also contended that the co=ordinate bench of this Court while considering the identical issue of the similarly situated persons affected by the construction of Kalma Barrage have filed WP (C) No. 99/2022 and this Court, disposed of the writ petition permitting the petitioners to submit a fresh representation to be considered by the competent authority within specified time frame and therefore, similar order may be passed in this also. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the Respondents/State submits that in view of the limited prayer made by the counsel for petitioner, he is having no objection. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and also perused the documents placed on record. 6. It is also necessary to take note of the fact that the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Gaya Bai Digmbar Puri (Died) Through LR’s Vs. The Executive Engineer & Ors reported in (2022) SCC OnLine SC 2269 decided on 03.01.2022, has held as under:- 4 4. The limited issue involved in this appeal is about the liability to pay interest whether commences from the date of taking possession or only from the date of award. The Court while issuing notice on 13.01.2021 noted thus: “Counsel for the petitioner(s) submits that the High Court has glossed over the crucial fact that in the present case, urgency clause was invoked. In that event, in light of the exposition of this Court in R.L. Jain (D) by LRs. v. D.D.A., (2004) 4 SCC 79, the interest ought to be payable from the date of taking possession. Issue notice on the application for condonation of delay as also on the special leave petition, returnable in four weeks. Dasti, in addition, is permitted. Liberty is granted to serve standing counsel for the State of Maharashtra.” 7. In view of the aforesaid decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the the only issue which needs to be considered at this juncture is so far as the payment of interest payable to the petitioners from the date of possession till the date of award. The respondents now have to decide only the entitlement of the petitioners for interest from the date of possession of land onwards within a period of four months. 8. Be that as it may, let the petitioners again approach the Respondent No. 4 by way of a suitable representation within a period of 30 days seeking for interest from the date the actual possession was taken from the petitioners, till date the award was passed. Upon such representation being made, the Respondent No.4 shall take an appropriate decision strictly in accordance with law and also taking note of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court referred to in the preceding paragraph at the 5 earliest preferably within a period of four months from the date of receipt of representation of the petitioners. 9. With the aforesaid observation and directions, this writ petition stands disposed of. Sd/- (Parth Prateem Sahu) Judge Dey SHUBHAM DEY Digitally signed by SHUBHAM DEY