\’\/ J / SERUM W 'P lg’a7/__ BEFORE HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR W. P. (C),No. ~ XWK /2009 PETITIONER g Jagannath Gupta S/o.- Mangal Sao Gupta, Aged about 67 years, R/o.« Sadar Bazar, Kawardha, District- Kabirdham (C.G.) VERSUS RESPONDENTS 1) State of Chhattisgarh Throug the Secreta rban Welfare Department, D.K.S. Bhan,.Mantralaya Raipur (C..) 2) Muniipal Council, Kawardha, Thrgh it’s Chief Executive Officer, District— Kabirham (C.G.) 3 President, Nagar Paiika Parishad, dh Dirict— Kabirdham (C.G.) 4) Executive Engineer, Naonal Highwas, Kaardh ivisi, Dstrit— Kabirdm (C.G.) '5). Ajay Bothra S/o Sh Dhanraj Bothra Ro Rishab Dev Chowk, Kawardha, Disict- Kabirdham (C.G.) 6) Suhash Chop S/o Shri Fatte Cd Chop R/o Rishabh Dev han da Kawardha, owk, brm ( strct— Kaidha C.G.) antnai S/o r i r ‘ i a R/o Rshabh Dev Chowk, Kwardha, District— Kabirdham (C.G.) h ry U aw , G c ou d ) Kawara, st ti y wa Don ic ha u ri / h tr b da Ch Dii 7)@ Shi 'Kewa cEEEQ “@zt. 8&(m1a £9t§zra 5M3 awwt ‘ *kQaapawem: mug Gallectat. mamat £9 ‘11}!z'a3‘ Etéwsi‘éh a. xam&é&1am (Wm ‘a - WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226/227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA. HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WRIT PETITION (C) N0. 2476 of 2009 PETITIONER Jagannath Gupta. VERSUS RESPONDENTS : State of Chhattisgarh & Others. WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226/227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA SB: Hon’ble Shri Satish K. Agnihotri, J. resent: Shri Anup Majumdar, Advocate for the petitioner. P Shri P.K.Bhaduri, Panel Lawyer for the State/respondent No. l, 4 and 8. . Shri Ramakant Pandey, Advocate for the respondent No. 2. Shri Ashok Das Vaishnav, Advocate for the respondent No. 3. ORDER ORAL) (Passed on 12t day of November, 2010) The petitioner seeks a direction to the respondent authorities to pay compensation in accordance with law for illegal and unauthorized acquisition of land acquired by the respondent authorities for widening of the National Highway No. 12-A. The brief facts, in nutshell, as proj ected by the petitioner is that the petitioner has two shops situated on the both sides of the National Highway No; 12-A’,‘ in between Ekta Chowk to Rishabhdev Chowk, at Kawardha, District Kabeerdharn. The said land have been unauthorisedly acquired by the respondent authorities without paying compensation and the petitioner has been deprived of his property and livelihood. u Shri Bhaduri, learned counsel appearing for the State/respondent x \ No. I, 4 and 8 submits that there is a dispute with regard to \ construction of the shop on the left side of the road. SO far as the \\\\ x \ x” ., ,LIW shop on'the other side is concerned, there is no dispute that the petitioner is entitled to compensation in accordance with law. Shri Pandey, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No. 2 submits that the responsibility to make payment of compensation is not on the respondent No. 2, but on the State Government. Shri Vaishnav, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No. 3 submits that the respondent No. 3 has already done the needful and the proposal has been submitted to the concerned authority 'for making payment of compensation to the petitioner. Shri Majumdar submits that the alleged violation of sanction of construction of- stationary shop cannot be~the ground for denial of compensation for acquisition of the said shop. If there is any Violation, at the most, some penalty may be imposed but the petitoiner cannot be deprived of compensation to which he is entitled under the provisions of Article 300-A of the Constitution of India. Having heard learned counsel appearing for the parties, perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto, it appears that there is .no such dispute with regard to entitlement of the petitioner for grant of compensation ’on the acquisition of his land and the shops of the petitioner, situated on both sides of the National Highway, as aforestated. The question asto whether the petitioner is entitled , t0 compensation, if it is found that there is violation of sanction granted by the Municipal Council, Kawardha. It appears that the grant of compensation in lieu,of acquisition ofthe shop and alleged violation, if any, of the sanction may be, which are entirely diffent concep. Even if there is any Violation of sanction ter re ts af construction f the sho, nership of the shops in question cannot be died Having regard to the above stated facts, the Clector, Kabeerdha is directed to’ examine the etire fats on afforing a opportunity of hearing to te petitioner and ensu that copensat n d o eit a li accorance with law is paid t the ptioner t the earest, prefably thin a pod of eight week from he at f receipt of a copy is order. Accorngly, te writ petition is disposed o. o p ow en. ol m n c d n h re mion i er Wi eri s t de o ofth di h f zv/