Facts
The forty-eight petitioners are agriculturists whose lands are situated adjacent to a stop dam constructed by NTPC Limited (Respondent No. 6)
Source reference: p. 6, para 2They allege that continuous water seepage from the dam has rendered their lands waterlogged and marshy (Daldal), making them unfit for cultivation
Source reference: p. 6, para 2Consequently, Respondent No. 6 provided compensation for such affected lands from 2011 until 2024, after which payments ceased despite the lands remaining uncultivable
Source reference: p. 6, para 2The petitioners submitted a joint representation (Annexure P-1) to the Collector, Bilaspur (Respondent No. 2), seeking the release of compensation for the years 2024-25 and 2025-26, which remains pending
Source reference: p. 7, para 2Issues
Whether a writ of Mandamus should be issued directing the Collector to decide the petitioners' pending representation regarding the grant and release of compensation for waterlogged agricultural lands
Source reference: p. 6, para 1; p. 7, para 4Law Applied
The Court exercised its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, which empowers the High Court to issue directions and writs, including Mandamus, for the redressal of grievances against state authorities
Source reference: p. 6, para 1The court applied the principle of administrative law that requires statutory authorities to consider and decide representations made by aggrieved parties within a reasonable period
Source reference: p. 7, para 4Reasoning
The Court observed that the petitioners limited their prayer to a direction for the expeditious disposal of their pending representation before the Collector
Source reference: p. 7, para 2The petitioners argued that since the land remains uncultivable due to the seepage from the dam, the stoppage of compensation previously paid since 2011 was unjustified
Source reference: p. 6, para 2Noting that the respondents expressed no objection to the limited prayer for a time-bound decision, the Court chose not to enter into the merits of the compensation claim itself
Source reference: p. 7, para 3-4It determined that the interest of justice would be served by ensuring the administrative authority (Respondent No. 2) performs its duty to adjudicate the filed representation
Source reference: p. 7, para 4Holding
The High Court disposed of the writ petition with a direction to the Collector, Bilaspur (Respondent No. 2), to decide the petitioners' joint representation (Annexure P-1) on its merits
The Court ordered the decision to be made as early as possible, preferably within 60 days from the date of receipt of the order
Source reference: p. 7, para 4-5No opinion was expressed on the merits of the petitioners' underlying claim for compensation
Source reference: p. 7, para 4Original Court PDF
MEGHNATH VASTRAKARvsSTATE OF CHHATTISGARH
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in