1 2026:CGHC:913 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 1811 of 2022 • Sanjay Jain S/o Bhagatmal Jain Aged About 48 Years R/o Infront Of Petrol Pump, Ward No. 02, Bijapur, Tahsil And District Bijapur, Chhattisgarh, District : Bijapur, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of Water Resource, Mahanadi Bhawan, New Mantralaya, Naya Raipur, Chhattisgarh, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - Collector, Bijapur, District Bijapur, Chhattisgarh, District : Bijapur, Chhattisgarh 3 - Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue) Bijapur, District Bijapur, Chhattisgarh, District : Bijapur, Chhattisgarh 4 - Sub Divisional Officer, Water Resource Department, Bijapur, District Bijapur, Chhattisgarh, District : Bijapur, Chhattisgarh 5 - Executive Engineer, Water Resource Department, Bijapur, District Bijapur, Chhattisgarh, District : Bijapur, Chhattisgarh ... Respondents For Petitioner : Mr. Pushpendra Kumar Patel, Advocate For State : Mr. Saumitra Kesharwani, Panel Lawyer Hon'ble Shri Justice Narendra Kumar Vyas Order on Board 07.01.2026 1. The petitioner has filed this petition assailing the order dated 07.01.2022 passed by the Collector, Bijapur, District Bijapur by which the petitioner's application for grant of compensation has been BHUMIKA ANGARE Digitally signed by BHUMIKA ANGARE Date: 2026.01.09 10:42:31 +0530 2 rejected. 2. The brief facts as reflected from the record are that the petitioner has purchased a land bearing Khasra No. 819 area 2.38 acres through registered sale deed dated 13.03.2018 and the said land has been acquired for construction of pond without giving any compensation. He has also preferred a petition before this Court bearing WP(C) No. 4064 of 2021 wherein this Court vide order dated 04.10.2021 has directed the Collector, Bijapur to decide the representation of the petitioner. In pursuance of direction given by this Court, the Collector vide order dated 07.01.2022 has decided the petitioner's representation and rejected the same. Hence, this petition. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that without paying compensation land has been acquired, therefore, it is violation of Article 300-A of the Constitution of India and would pray that instant writ petition may be allowed and impugned order dated 07.01.2022 may be quashed. 4. Per contra learned counsel for the State opposing the submission made by learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the land originally belongs to Ku. Kalpana Devi, D/o of Prabhakar Dev which has already been acquired way back in the year 1977-78 after paying compensation to the land owner, as such, the representation of the petitioner has rightly been rejected by the respondent authority and would pray for dismissal of the writ petition. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record with utmost circumspection. 6. From perusal of the record it is quite vivid that vide impugned order dated 07.01.2022, the respondent has categorically recorded its finding 3 that the land has already been acquired way back in the year 1977-78 and compensation has already been paid to the original land owner, as such, subsequent land owner has no right to claim compensation. The petitioner is unable to point out any perversity or illegality in finding recorded by the authorities while rejecting the representation. Considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the view that no case for interference is made out. 7. Accordingly, the instant writ petition is dismissed. Sd/- (Narendra Kumar Vyas) Judge Bhumika