1 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 358 of 2019 1 - Manharan Lal Garhewal S/o Gandhuwa Aged About 70 Years R/o Village Nirtu ,tahsil Takhatpur Police Station ,koni District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh., District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Its Secretary Department Of Revenue Mahanadi Bhawan Atal Nagar District Raipur Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - Collector Bilaspur District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh., District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh 3 - Land Acquisition Officer Cum Sub Divisional Officer, (Revenue) Of Sub Division Bilaspur ,head Office, Bilaspur District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh., District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh 4 - National Highway Authority Of India Ltd. Through Its Project Director, Project Implementation Unit Bilaspur Office At Abhilasha Parisar Behind New Bus Stand Bilaspur, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner : Ms. Laxmin Tondey, Advocate holding the brief of Shri Kamal Kishore Patel, Advocate. For Respondent/ State : Ms. Shailja Shukla, Dy.G.A. For Respondent No.4 : Shri Dhriraj Wankhede, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 20.08.2025 SMT NIRMALA RAO 2 1. The petitioner has filed this petition seeking the following reliefs: “10.1 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondents for payment of rehabilitation grant in view of Notification dated 04/01/2017 to the petitioners. 10.2 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondents for deciding the representation in light of notification dated 04/01/2017. 10.3 Any other relief/ order may also be granted that may be deemed fit and just in the facts and circumstances of the case.” 2. Learned counsel for the State would submit that the petitioner had made a representation before the respondent authorities claiming therein payment of rehabilitation grant in view of the notification dated 4.1.2017. However, the said representation was rejected vide order dated 24.5.2019, and the order was duly communicated to the petitioner. She would submit that the petitioner has not challenged the said order. 3. Heard. 4. Considering the fact that the payment of rehabilitation grant has already been denied and representation has been rejected by the Competent Authority, this petition does not survive. Accordingly, this petition is disposed of. However, the petitioner would be at liberty to challenge the order dated 24.5.2019, if so advised. 5. The copy of the order dated 24.05.2019 is taken on record. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge Nimmi