1 2025:CGHC:23143 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 640 of 2023 1 - Smt. Bisahin Bai Bharti W/o Late Tulsiram Bharti Aged About 59 Years Resident Of Village - Satnami Para, Dunda, Raipur, Tahsil And District Raipur Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - Raipur Development Authirity Through Its Manager (Revenue/land), Office At Rajendra Nagar, Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - The Collector, Collectorate, Raipur Chhattisgarh 3 - Sub Divisional Officer, (Land Acquition), Raipur Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Shri B.P.Sharma, Advocate assisted by Shri Pushp Kumar Gupta, Advocate For Respondent(s) For Respondent No.2 &3 : : Shri H.B.Agrawal, Sr. Advocate assisted by Ms. Sandhya Rao, Advocate Shri Abhishek Gupta,PL (Hon’ble Shri Justice Arvind Kumar Verma) Order on Board 11/06/2025 Being aggrieved by the action of the respondent No.1 ie. RDA, the petitioner has filed this present petition for issuing direction to the 2 concerned authority to return the compensation amount as allegedly deposited by them from the office of respondent No.3 with interest and prayed for the following reliefs: 10.1. it is prayed that a writ and/or an order in the nature of writ of appropriate nature do issue calling the relevant records pertianing to case of the petitioner from the court velow concerned for its kind perusal. 10.2. A writ and/or an order in the nature of writ of mandamus do issue directing the respondent NO.1 State authorities to obtain back the compensation amount as allegedly deposited by them from the office of respondent No.3 with interest accrued, if any, and thereafter allot and registered plot No. A-09, Sector 06, admeasuring area of 668.50 sq.mt. In favour of the petitioner, on such other terms deemed fit by this Hon’ble Court, in the facts and circumstances of the case and in the interest of justice. 10.3 Cost of the proceedings. 10.4 Any other writ and directions that may be deemed fit and just in the facts and circumstances of the case.” 2. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner is seeking enforcement of the fundamental rights guaranteed under Articles 14,19 and 21 of the Constitution of India. The petitioner or their predecesors were the owner of the land bearing survey number 45/2 admeasuring 1910 sq.mt. Situated at village Dunda, RI circle Raipur, Tahsil and District Raipur. The respondent authorities framed a scheme namely City Development Scheme No.4 (Kamal Vihar) in Raipur and an area has been earmarked within which the land belonging to the petitioner or 3 their predecessors has also been included and for which payment of compensation as per Section 56 of the Chhattisgarh Nagar Tatha Gram Nivesh Adhiniyam, 1973 issued publication, notices, etc. stating that if the Bhumiswami falling under the said scheme is agreed for allotment of the plot No. A-09, Sector 6 admeasuring area of 668.50 sq. mt. The petitioner has agreed for allotment of plot in her favor but on account of various reasons particularly, the person who is named as the Bhumiswami either is or not alive or his/her name has not been recorded being the successor as the person entitled for or the written consent has not been submitted. The award has been passed by the respondent/land acquisition authorities and the name of the person entitled for or entered into agreement or giving consent has not been recorded for the acquit ed land at the relevant point of time and before the petitioner could take steps further proceedings have been initiated and name of the Raipur Development Authority has been mutated in the revenue records and the inaction of the respondent authorities amounts to violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. Hence the present petition. 3. Contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the act of the respondent/authorities is illegal and arbitrary which come under the purview of extortion or at least illegal demand by the State instrumentality for the payment of compensation in respect of their acquired land. He submits that merely because the authorities are not approachable to the petitioner, the consent letter or entering into the agreement will not divest the petitioner from being treated similarly with the persons who have been allotted plot in place of the acquired land. It 4 is submitted that the respondent authorities have failed to appreciate that the petitioner is an agriculturist and as per Article 31 of the constitution of India, they can only divest in respect of right over their agricultural land by following the procedure established in law and that too, in a reasonable manner by adopting a reasonable attitude looking into the social conditions of the persons affected by the acquisition. 4. Counsel for the respondent No.1 submits that the petitioner has challenged the inaction of the respondent No.1 making the petitioner pay an amount towards service charge, penalty and interest for the allotment of land in her name which was solely on account of her failure to provide written consent within the time specified to the respondent No.1. It is submitted that the petitioner was sent a letter dated 01.06.2018 to pay the difference amount of service charge, interest and penalty amount against the allotment of the reconstituted plot of land within 7 days. However, it is submitted that the above mentioned letter was inadvertently issued to the petitioner and was cancelled vide letter dated 12.04.2023 stating that the Board of Directors had decided that there would be no allotment of the reconstituted plots in which the award has been passed and in case the reconstituted plot is reserved, the same would be included in the list of sale. In lieu of the same, the petitioner was directed by the respondent No.1 to collect the sum of Rs. 21,87,905/- as against the award amount from the Sub Divisional Officer. Since the petitioner has not objected in acquisition proceedings and the land has been acquired in favour of respondent No.1 after following due procedure prescribed in Land Acquisition Act, 1894 hence, the acquisition can not be set aside and the land cannot be 5 reverted back to the petitioner. He further submits that the respondent No.1 has filed an affidavit stating that the allotment order has been wrongly issued to the petitioner on 01.06.2018 which was against the decision taken vide resolution No.8 of the Board of Directors and therefore show cause notice has been issued to the responsible person and one of them had resigned whereas some of them have been suspended. 5. After going through the documents annexed in the present petition as well as the rival submissions of the learned counsel for the parties, it is revealed that after the death of the husband of the petitioner or their predecessors, names of the wife and their children has not been mutated. There is no fault on the part of the petitioner and it is the respondents who are at fault for which the respondents had already taken action against the concerned officers and therefore case of the petitioner may be reconsidered in accordance with law within a period of 60 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order. 6. With the above observation, the petition stands disposed of. Sd/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) Judge SUGUNA DUBEY Digitally signed by SUGUNA DUBEY Date: 2025.06.18 11:15:59 +0530