1 CGHC010305472026 2026:CGHC:37908 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 4155 of 2026 1 - Loknath S/o Ransay Aged About 49 Years Resident Of Village - Sakrali, Tehsil - Dabhra, District - Sakti, Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary Department Of Revenue And Disaster Management, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhavan, Atal Nagar, New Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 2 - Secretary Department Of Water Resource Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhavan, Atal Nagar, New Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 3 - Secretary Department Of Industries Mahanadi Bhavan, Atal Nagar, New Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 4 - Collector District Sakti Chhattisgarh. 5 - Sub Divisional Officer (R) Cum Land Acquisition Officer Dabhara District - Sakti, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Pranjal Agrawal, Advocate. For Respondent(s)/State : Mr. S. S. Choubey, G.A. RAGHVENDRA JAT Digitally signed by RAGHVENDRA JAT 2 Hon’ble Mr. Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Order on Board 24/08/2026 1. By way of this petition, the petitioner has prayed for following reliefs:- “10.1 That this Hon'ble court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondents for payment under provision of 11.2.3 of rehabilitation policy, 2007 of Chattisgarh within two weeks. 10.2 Any other relief, which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper, may also be passed in favour of the petitioner.” 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has filed the present petition seeking a direction to the concerned authorities for extending the benefit of payment of compensation in terms of provision of 11.2.3 of the Rehabilitation Policy, 2007 framed by the State Government. It is submitted that, under the aforesaid provision, the petitioner is entitled to be rehabilitated and to receive the corresponding benefits contemplated under the said policy. Although the petitioner has already received compensation in respect of the acquisition/displacement, the benefit of compensation towards rehabilitation, as specifically provided under provision of 11.2.3 of the Rehabilitation Policy, 2007, has not yet been extended to the petitioner. Learned counsel further submits that the petitioner has already submitted a 3 representation/application before the concerned authorities seeking grant of the aforesaid benefit. It is, therefore, prayed that the concerned authorities may kindly be directed to consider and decide the petitioner's claim in accordance with provision of 11.2.3 of the Rehabilitation Policy, 2007, particularly in view of the order passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in SLP (C) Diary No. 19673/2025, wherein the appeal preferred by the State Government against the order granting compensation under provision of 11.2.3 of the Rehabilitation Policy, 2007 came to be dismissed. It is, therefore, submitted that the claim of the petitioner deserves to be considered by the competent authority in the light of the aforesaid order passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court and in accordance with the applicable policy provisions. 3. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the State opposes the prayer made by learned counsel for the petitioner and submits that no direction, as prayed for, is warranted in the facts and circumstances of the present case. 4. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and have perused the material available on record. 5. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, and particularly taking into consideration the grievance raised by the petitioner regarding non-extension of the benefit contemplated under provision of 11.2.3 of the Rehabilitation Policy, 2007, this Court is of the considered view that the interest of justice would be served if the concerned authority is directed to consider and 4 decide the claim of the petitioner. 6. Accordingly, the concerned authority is directed to consider the case of the petitioner in the light of the provisions contained in Clause 11.2.3 of the Rehabilitation Policy, 2007, as well as the order passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in SLP (C) Diary No. 19673/2025, and to take an appropriate decision thereupon strictly in accordance with law and the applicable policy provisions. Such consideration and decision shall be undertaken within a period of 60 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, after affording due opportunity to the petitioner, if so required. 7. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the claim of the petitioner, and the competent authority shall consider the same independently in accordance with law. 8. With this observation and direction, the writ petition is disposed of. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Raghu Jat