1 2026:CGHC:19207 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 2528 of 2021 • Rajeev Lochan Dansena S/o Shri Karam Lal Dansena, Aged About 32 Years R/o Village Chhapora, Tahsil Pusaur, District Raigarh, Civil And Revenue District Raigarh Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner versus 1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through Collector Raigarh District Raigarh Chhattisgarh 2. The Sub Divisional Officer, (Revenue) Cum Land Acquisition Officer, Raigarh District Raigarh Chhattisgarh 3. The Tahsildar, Pusaur, Raigarh District Raigarh Chhattisgarh 4. The National Thermal Power Corporation, (NTPC) Limited, Western Region Headquarter- II, 4th Floor, Magneto Offizo, Magneto The Mall, GE Road, Labhandi, Raipur, District Raipur (Chhattisgarh) 492001. ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner : Mr. Manoj Kumar Sinha, Advocate For State : Mr. Keshav Gupta, Government Advocate For Respondent No. 4 : Mr. Anuroop Panda, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 25.04 .2026 1. By way of this petition, the petitioner has sought the following relief(s):- “10.1 That the Hon'ble Court be pleased to call for the entire records in connection of the petitioner's cases. 10.2 That the Hon'ble court be further pleased to direct the Respondent authorities to consider the claim of the petitioner to provide employment SIDDHANT TAMRAKAR Digitally signed by SIDDHANT TAMRAKAR Date: 2026.04.28 10:27:03 +0530 2 under the NTPC Project Lara as his land has been acquired for public purpose. 10.3 Any other order that the Hon'ble Court deems fit and necessary in the circumstances of the case be also passed. 10.4 That the cost of the petition be also awarded to the petitioners.” 2. Learned counsel for NTPC would submit that an agreement was entered into between the father of the petitioner and NTPC, whereby, a sum of Rs. 5,59,692/- was accepted by the father of the petitioner in lieu of employment according to R & R plan. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would not dispute this fact. 4. As the petitioner has sought for a direction to the respondent authorities to consider the claim of the petitioner to provide employment in lieu of land acquisition, and at the same time, father of the petitioner has accepted a sum of Rs. 5,59,692/- in lieu of employment as one time settlement; therefore, no relief can be granted. Accordingly, this petition fails and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) JUDGE $iddhant