LOKNATH vs STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

1

CGHC010305472026 2026:CGHC:37908
Digitally
signed by
RAGHVENDRA
JAT
RAGHVENDRA
JAT
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.

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