1 2026:CGHC:48 NAFR HIGH COURT of CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 1935 of 2016 Kamtaprasad Ratre S/o Nanku Ram, Aged About 60 Years R/o Village Baroda, Tahsil Arang, District Raipur Chhattisgarh. … Petitioner versus 1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary Department of Housing And Environment, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Post and P S Mandir Hasaud, Raipur Chhattisgarh. 2 - Naya Raipur Development Authority, Through Chief Executive officer, Rajdhani Parisar, Sector 19, Naya Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 3 - Manager Land, Naya Raipur Development Authority, Naya Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner : Ms. Surya Kawalkar Dangi, Advocate For State/Respondent No.1 : Mr. Triveni Shankar Sahu, Panel Lawyer For Respondents No.2 & 3 : Mr. Sumesh Bajaj, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 02.01.2026 1) The petitioner has filed this petition seeking the following relief(s):- “10.i. To kindly call for the records of the case from the respondents. ii. To kindly quash the impugned order dated 25/04/2016 (Annexure P/1). Digitally signed by NADIM MOHLE 2 iii. To kindly direct the respondents to grant the benefit of additional rehabilitation package to the petitioner as per order dated 15/05/2013 of the State Government. iv. To kindly make any other order that may be deemed fit and just in the facts and circumstances of the case including awarding of the costs to the petitioner. (v) This Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to set aside the decision taken by the respondent no. 2 in the meeting held of Board of directors on 28.03.2016 vide the agenda no. 25 (Annexure P/2) and the decision taken by the respondent no. 2 in the meeting held of Board of directors on 29.04.2017 vide the agenda no. 22 (Annexure R-2/1) as being illegal and bad in law and passed without having any jurisdiction in this regard.” 2) The facts, in a nutshell, are that the State Government floated the Naya Raipur Development Plan, 2021 (for short, NRDP) and issued the Naya Raipur Rehabilitation Policy and also made an Empowered committee to took decision to provide an additional rehabilitation package. According to Clause 2 of the Agenda No.3 dated 10.04.2013 of the meeting of High Power Empowered Committee, a decision was taken to provide ex gratia to the persons who were encroached on Government land prior to 01.11.1992. The amount of such ex gratia was to be calculated on the basis of the Collector Guidelines for the year 2011–12. The petitioner was in possession of 1.92 hectares of Government land prior to 01.11.1992, situated at Village Baroda, Tehsil Arang. The petitioner applied for compensation in accordance with the decision dated 10.04.2013. After enquiry, the Revenue Authorities 3 found the petitioner eligible to receive compensation & accordingly an amount of 3.36 lakhs ₹ was paid to the petitioner. The petitioner in this petition has claimed a sum of 32,64,000 ₹ as per the Collector Guidelines for the year 2011–12. An amount of 3.36 lakhs ₹ was paid to the petitioner pursuant to the order passed by Respondent No. 2 dated 25.02.2016. The petitioner challenged the order dated 25.04.2016 along with the decision taken by the Board of Directors of the Naya Raipur Development Authority dated 28.03.2016, wherein it was resolved that encroachers on Government land would be eligible to receive ex gratia amount only. 3) Ms. Dangi, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner was in possession of 1.92 hectares of Government land and this fact is not in dispute. She would contend that the petitioner was forcefully dispossessed from the property pursuant to the decision dated 10.04.2013 & therefore, he was entitled to receive compensation strictly in accordance with the Collector Guidelines for the year 2011–12, which comes to 32,64,000 ₹ . She would further contend that the Board of Directors, modified the decision dated 10.04.2013, which is erroneous. She would argue that once a decision was taken by the State Government, the Board of Directors was not competent to modify or cancel such decision. She would further argue that without obtaining consent of the petitioner, the subject land was acquired by the respondents; therefore, the petitioner is entitled for 4 compensation strictly in accordance with the decision dated 10.04.2013 taken by the High Power Empowered Committee. 4) Ms. Dangi would submit that the order dated 26.05.2010 was issued by respondent No. 1 regarding payment of ex gratia to land oustees who were in possession of Government land and who agreed to transfer the land in favour of NRDA by mutual consent is not applicable to the present case, as there is no mention of survey number of land of the petitioner and the order is not related to encroachers over Government land. 5) On the other hand, Mr. Bajaj learned counsel appearing for respondents No.2 & 3 would argue that bare reading of Clause 2 of Agenda No. 3 would make it clear that the calculation of ex gratia compensation was to be made on the basis of the Collector Guidelines for the year 2011–12. On the basis of those guidelines, ex gratia compensation was to be paid to landholders who were encroachers on Government land. He would contend that in the subsequent resolution, the Board of Directors of NRDA neither modified nor cancelled the decision taken by the High Power Empowered Committee; rather, Clause 2 of Agenda No. 3 was clarified. It was decided that only land oustees would be eligible to receive ex gratia amount. 6) He would further submit that an order dated 26.05.2010 was issued by respondent No. 1 regarding payment of ex gratia to land oustees who 5 were in possession of Government land and who agreed to transfer the land in favour of NRDA by mutual consent. He would also contend that the decision taken by the Committee dated 10.04.2013 and the subsequent order dated 26.05.2010 have not been challenged by the petitioner, therefore, the petition deserves to be dismissed. 7) Mr. T.S. Sahu, learned Panel Lawyer counsel appearing for the State would support the submissions made by Mr. Bajaj. 8) I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents placed on record. 9) It is an admitted fact that the petitioner was in possession of 1.92 hectares of Government land situated at Village Baroda, Tehsil Arang. The land was acquired by the State Government for the development of Naya Raipur. As the petitioner was in possession of Government land, a decision was taken by the High Power Empowered Committee to grant ex gratia compensation to the land oustees. 10) Clause 2 of Agenda No. 3 of the meeting dated 10.04.2013 reads as under: “(2) यदि परियजना ्ቚभादित व्यदि ቛኋ शासकीय भादि प दिनाकी 01 नाम्ब 1992 की प स अदित्ቅण की की! दि" कीय दिकीय जना रिकी्ቑ तथा कीब्ज की आधा प ्ቚदिणत हो तथा ऐस* भादि परियजना की लि,ए लि,य जना आश्यकी हो त ऐस व्यदि स भादि की कीब्ज नाय यप/ ्ቑव्हो,प0ट अथा2रिट* की स3प जना प " 2011-12 0 ्ቚचलि,त गाइ्ቑ ,इना  प अना/्ቇहो दिशा की भा/गातना नाय यप/ ्ቑव्हो,प0ट अथा2रिट* ቛኋ दिकीय जयगा।” 6 11) A bare reading of the aforesaid clause would make it clear that the land oustees would be entitled to get ex gratia amount based upon the Collector Guidelines for the year 2011–12. There is no indication that such persons would be entitled to receive compensation on the basis of the market value of land. 12) In the meeting of the Board of Directors of NRDA (Exhibit P-10, page 44, Agenda No. 25), it was clarified that such land oustees would not be entitled to compensation according to market value rather they would be entitled to get ex gratia amount. 13) A conjoint reading of Clause 2 of Agenda No. 3 dated 10.04.2013 and Agenda No. 25 of the subsequent meeting of the Board of Directors of NRDA dated 28.03.2016 would make it clear that the encroachers on Government lands would be entitled to get ex gratia on the basis of Collector Guidelines for the year 2011–12. The respondent No. 2 has already paid a sum of 3.36 lakhs to the petitioner ₹ . 14) Since the decision was taken by the State Government to grant ex gratia on 26.05.2010 (Annexure R/1-2), the contention raised by Ms. Dangi that the amount of ex gratia is not mentioned in the guidelines of the year 2011–12 cannot be accepted, as the same was duly clarified by the authorities from time to time. Further, these orders have not been challenged by the petitioner in the present petition. 7 15) Respondent No. 2 assessed the ex gratia amount in accordance with the directions/resolutions/decisions/instructions issued by the State Government and resolution of the High Power Empowered Committee dated 10.04.2013, at the rate of 1.75 lakhs per hectare ₹ , whereby a total compensation of 3.36 lakhs ₹ was granted to the petitioner. 16) For the forgoing reasons, I do not find any good ground to interfere with the decision taken by respondent No. 2. Accordingly, the instant writ petition deserves to be dismissed & is hereby dismissed. No order as to cost. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge Nadim