Chhattisgarh High Court
WPC/4018/2022 of CHABILAL Vs STATE OF CHHATTISGARH on 22 September 2026
2026:CGHC:41402 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 4018 of 2022 1 - Chabilal S/o Ratan Singh Aged About 44 Years R/o Village Bilaigarh Tahsil Dabhara, District Sakti, Chhattisgarh., Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary
CGHC010296452022
2026:CGHC:41402
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
WPC No. 4018 of 2022
1 - Chabilal S/o Ratan Singh Aged About 44 Years R/o Village Bilaigarh Tahsil Dabhara, District Sakti, Chhattisgarh., Chhattisgarh
... Petitioner(s)
versus
1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary Department Of Revenue And Disaster Management Mahanadi Bhawan New Raipur., District :
Raipur,
Chhattisgarh
-
Collector
Sakti,
District
Sakti,
Chhattisgarh.
3 - Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue) Dabhara, District Sakti, Chhattisgarh.
4 - Executive Engineer (W.R.D) Kalma Barrage, Raigarh Division Raigarh, Chhattisgarh.
... Respondent(s)
For Petitioner(s)
: Mr. Apurva Nigam, Advocate.
For Respondent(s)/State : Mr. Priyank Rathi, Panel Lawyer.
Hon’ble Mr. Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Order on Board 23/09/2026
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
1. By way of this petition, the petitioner has prayed for following reliefs:- “10.1 That this Hon'ble court kindly be pleased to direct the respondent authorities for taking decision on petitioners RAGHVENDRA JAT Digitally signed by RAGHVENDRA JAT
claim under Section 80 of Act 2013 in light of the judgment laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of GAYABAI DIGAMBAR PURI (DIED) THR. LR VERSUS THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER & ORS decided on 03/01/2022. 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 in view of the acquisition of the lands and in light of the provisions contained in Section 80 of the Act of 2013, the petitioner is entitled to interest from the date from which the acquired land has been utilized till payment/disbursal of compensation. It is further submitted that despite several representations, the competent authority has failed to take any decision thereon. Reliance has also been placed upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Gayabai Digambar Puri (Died) Thr. LRs v. The Executive Engineer & Ors., decided on 03.01.2022.
3. Learned State counsel submits that the claim of the petitioner shall be considered in accordance with law, if representations are made and are pending before the competent authority.
4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the material available on record.
5. Considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case and the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court referred to above, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the claim, the writ petition is disposed of with a direction that in the event the petitioner move fresh representations before respondent Nos. 2 and 3 claiming benefits under Section 80 of the Act of 2013, within a period of four weeks from today, the said respondents shall consider and decide the same in accordance with law and applicable rules, by a reasoned and speaking order, at the earliest, preferably within a period of four months thereafter.
6. It is made clear that this Court has not adjudicated upon the entitlement of the petitioner on merits and all questions are left open to be considered by the competent authority.
7. With this observation and direction, the writ petition is disposed of. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Raghu Jat