Order on Board

1. Since common question of facts and law is involved in these cases, as such, all these petitions are being disposed of by this common order.

2. By way of the present petitions, the petitioners namely Ratiram Sahu, Kartik @ Pannalal and Santosh Kumar Sahu challenge the impugned action/order of respondent No. 1, who has failed to consider or respond to the petitioners despite the petitioners having clearly expressed inability to undertake employment on account of old age, and further challenge the denial of compensation in terms of Para 4.15(a) of the Ideal Rehabilitation Policy, 2007 (as amended). As per Annexure 1.16 of Appendix-II of the Model Rehabilitation Policy, permanent employment is to be provided to the family members of tenants/affected persons, however, in the present cases, private land of Village Mandhar was acquired for Development Centre, Silatra, for industrial purposes (railway siding), and the affected tenants, including the petitioners, expressed their inability to work in the plant and accordingly sought lump sum compensation in lieu of employment vide application dated 11.02.2016, which was acknowledged by order dated 22.02.2016, and the petitioners are further entitled to compensation in terms of the notification published in the Chhattisgarh Gazette dated 19.03.2010 bearing No. F7-97/Reh. Policy/2007 relating to Para 4.15 of the Ideal Rehabilitation Policy, 2007 (as amended), governing compensation in cases of land acquisition for commercial and industrial projects. Hence, the present writ petitions.

3. The petitioners have prayed for certain reliefs in the writ petitions.Though there are some sort of differences in respect of prayer made by the petitioners in all the petitions, however, in sum and substance, the reliefs are altogether similar and identical. The reliefs prayed in WPC No. 481/2020 (Ratiram Sahu vs. State of Chhattisgarh and others) are quoted hereinbelow in order to consider these cases and to decide the same.

“10.1 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to allow the writ petition and direction to the respondent concern that District- Raipur, dated 21.05.2018 (Annexure P/1).

10.2 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to directed to pay the difference of acquisition award as directed under notification in Chhattisgarh Gazette dated 19.03.2010 (Annexure P/2).

10.3 Any other relief/relief's which may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case may also be allowed. An affidavit in support of this petition is filed herewith.”

4. Brief facts of the case, are that, the private agricultural lands situated at Village Mandhar, P.N. 22, RNM, Tehsil Dharsinwa, District Raipur (Chhattisgarh), belonging to the petitioner’s wife late Motim Bai D/o Phagwa and W/o Ratiram Sahu bearing Khasra No. 766/15 admeasuring 0.433 hectares and to the petitioner’s son Santosh Kumar Sahu S/o Ratiram Sahu bearing Khasra No. 819/2 admeasuring 0.105 hectares, were acquired by respondent No. 3 vide order No. Land-Acquisition/02/A-82/Year 2011-12 Raipur dated 29.06.2013. Thereafter, the said lands were transferred to respondent No. 1. Compensation amounts of Rs. 11,20,992/- and Rs. 2,71,834/- were paid during the year 2013– 14. The names of the affected family members were duly recorded as per Annexure-II Para 1.6 of the Ideal Rehabilitation Policy. It is further submitted that during the pendency of proceedings, the petitioner’s wife Motim Bai expired on 16.01.2015. Her legal representative, i.e., the husband Ratiram Sahu, was substituted. It is submitted that the petitioner, being entitled to employment under the Ideal Rehabilitation Policy, expressed his inability to undertake employment due to old age. Accordingly, he sought lump sum compensation in lieu of employment by issuing a legal notice dated 12.05.2017 through counsel. The respondents submitted their reply dated 14.06.2017. The State of Chhattisgarh, vide Gazette Notification da