Competent authority must decide Clause 11.2.3 rehabilitation-benefit claims within 60 days without prejudging merits.

The petitioner, a resident of Village Sakrali, District Sakti, claimed that although he had received compensation in relation to acquisition/displacement, he had not been granted the additional rehabilitation compensation contemplated under Clause 11.2.3 of the Chhattisgarh Rehabilitation Policy, 2007.

He stated that he had submitted a representation/application to the competent authorities seeking the benefit under the said provision and relied upon the Supreme Court’s dismissal of the State’s appeal in SLP (C) Diary No. 19673/2025 concerning compensation under Clause 11.2.3.

The State opposed the prayer and submitted that no direction was warranted.

The petitioner therefore approached the High Court seeking payment under Clause 11.2.3 within two weeks.

The Court applied Clause 11.2.3 of the Chhattisgarh Rehabilitation Policy, 2007, which provides for specified rehabilitation-related compensation or benefits to eligible affected persons.

It also directed the authority to consider the petitioner’s claim in light of the order passed by the Supreme Court in SLP (C) Diary No. 19673/2025, while emphasizing that the claim had to be examined independently, strictly in accordance with law and the applicable policy provisions.

The Court followed the administrative-law principle that a competent authority must duly consider and decide a properly raised claim, but that such a direction does not amount to an adjudication or expression of opinion on the claim’s merits.

The Court noted that the petitioner had raised a specific grievance regarding non-extension of the benefit under Clause 11.2.3 and had already approached the concerned authorities by way of a representation.

Since determination of eligibility and entitlement under the rehabilitation policy involved consideration by the competent authority, the Court found that the interests of justice would be served by requiring that authority to examine the claim rather than ordering immediate payment.

The authority was directed to consider both Clause 11.2.3 and the Supreme Court’s order relied upon by the petitioner, after affording the petitioner an opportunity of hearing, if necessary.

The Court expressly refrained from deciding the merits of the petitioner’s entitlement.

The decision was to be taken within 60 days from receipt of a copy of the High Court’s order, after providing due opportunity to the petitioner if required.

No direction for immediate payment was issued, and the Court clarified that it had expressed no opinion on the merits of the claim.