2025:CGHC:4338 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 653 of 2019 1 - Govind Tilakwar S/o Baniram Aged About 56 Years R/o Village And Post Bodla, District - Kabirdham Chhattisgarh., District : Kawardha (Kabirdham), Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Public Works Department Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Atal Nagar, Naya Raipur, District - Raipur Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - The Collector Kabirdham, District - Kabirdham Chhattisgarh., District : Kawardha (Kabirdham), Chhattisgarh 3 - Project Manager (A.D.B. Project), Chhattisgarh State Development Project, Public Works Department, Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh., District : Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh ---- Respondents For Petitioner : Ms. Renu Kochar, Advocate For State : Mr. Shubham Bajpayee, Panel Lawyer Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 21.01.2025 1. The petitioner has filed this petition seeking the following relief(s):- “10.1) That, the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to call for the entire records pertaining to this case from possession of the respondents for its kind perusal. 10.2) That, the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue in the nature of mandamus directing respondent authorities not to demolish the petitioner's land and quash the impugned notice -2- dated 15.02.2019 (Annexure P/1) 10.3) That, the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issued writ in the nature of mandamus directing respondent authorities to give compensation for the land which has been acquired by the respondent authorities. 10.4) Any other relief which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper, may also be passed in favour of the petitioner.” 2. Ms. Kochar, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the lease of Survey No.331/1 area 2420 sq.ft. situated at Village-Bodla, Patwari Circle No.7, District Kabirdham (C.G.) was granted in favour of the petitioner in the year 2006 and a two storied building was constructed over that land where the petitioner is staying along with his family. She would further submit that respondent No.3 initiated a project of widening the road and six meters of land of the petitioner was required for this purpose. She would also submit that the award was passed and the petitioner was paid compensation to the tune of Rs.13,78,175/-. She would further contend that on the instance of a letter dated 19.09.2017 and the oral instructions given by respondent No.3, the petitioner demolished 8 meters of his construction. She would state that the compensation was paid pertaining to 6 meters of land of the petitioner and for 8 meters of land, no compensation has been paid. She would pray that a direction may be issued to the respondent authorities to make the payment of compensation and quash the order dated 15.02.2019. 3. On the other hand, Mr. Bajpayee, the learned Panel Lawyer appearing for the State would oppose the submissions made by Ms. Kochar. He would submit that pursuant to the interim order passed by this Court in the present petition on 11.03.2019, the demarcation was conducted by the revenue authorities to ascertain the area of acquisition. He would further submit that according to the demarcation report dated 27.03.2019, the area of Survey No.333/1 was 2420 sq.ft. Whereas Survey No.319/1(k) admeasuring 0.25 acres is reserved as Abadi land. It is further found in the demarcation report that 719 sq.ft. of the land of the petitioner is affected by the acquisition and widening of the road and the compensation has already been paid. 4. Heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the documents placed on the record. 5. From a perusal of the demarcation report, it is evident that 719 sq.ft. of land from survey No.334 got affected on account of the acquisition and widening of the road and compensation has already been paid to the petitioner and admeasruing 0.14 acre of land of survey No.334 is the Abadi land and the petitioner cannot claim compensation for the acquisition of that land. 6. Taking into consideration the above-stated facts, I do not find any good ground to interfere with the decision taken by the respondent authorities. Consequently, the present petition fails and is accordingly dismissed. No cost(s). Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge Rekha