Chattisgarh High CourtMahendra Kumar Sahu vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 1 February, 2017Author:Prashant Kumar MishraBench:Prashant Kumar MishraNAFR

             HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

                            WPC No. 231 of 2017

     1. Mahendra Kumar Sahu S/o Lochansingh Sahu, Aged About 49
        Years Occupation Agriculturist, R/o Ramev Chowk, Sadar Road,
        Balod, District Balod (Chhattisgarh)

                                                           ---- Petitioner

                                   Versus

     1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through : Secretary, Department Of
        Revenue, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Naya Raipur
        (Chhattisgarh)

     2. Collector, District Balod (Chhattisgarh)

     3. Chief Executive Engineer, Public Works Department, Balod
        Division, Balod, District Balod (Chhattisgarh)

                                                        ---- RespondentFor Petitioner                   Ms. Anju Ahuja, Advocate
For Respondent/State             Shri A.S. Kachhawaha, Addl. Adv.
                                 GeneralHon'ble Shri Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra

                              Order On Board

01/02/20171.      This petition underArticle 226of the Constitution of India is

        preferred for a direction to the respondents to pay the enhanced

        amount of compensation by working out the same in view of the

        recent guidelines (Annexure - P/7).2.     It appears, petitioner's land has been acquired for construction of

       Balod-Padkibhat By-Pass road. The award amount has already

       been calculated in terms of provisions contained in theRight to

       Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition,

       Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013(for short 'the Act,

       2013'). The petitioner is aggrieved by inadequacy of the award.3.     Considering the fact that the Act, 2013 provides for a remedy

       underSections 64&65of the Act, 2013 for making a reference to

       the Collector, who shall, thereafter, referred the matter to the

       authority constituted underSection 51of the Act, 2013, the writ

       petition is disposed of with a direction that the petitioner may

       prefer application before the concerned Collector in terms ofSections 64&65of the Act, 2013 and the said Collector,

       thereafter, refer the matter for adjudication by the State level

       authority constituted underSection 51of the Act, 2013.4.     Since there appears no written promise to the petitioner for

       rehabilitation by providing employment, the petitioner may prefer a

       separate writ petition for the said relief on the basis of any

       Government circular or instruction, if they are available.Sd/-Judge
     Gowri                                      Prashant Kumar Mishra