RAMKUMAR vs STATE OF CHHATTISGARH Advocate - A.G. — WPC/1733/2026

Disposed: Contested--DISPOSED OFF on 06th May 2026.

Case disposed

CNR: CGHC010132602026

Filing Number

WPC/7651/2026

Filing Date

01-Apr-2026

Registration No

WPC/1733/2026

Registration Date

10-Apr-2026

Judge

Hon'ble Shri Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad

Coram

Hon'ble Shri Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad

Bench Type

Single Bench

Category

LAND ACQUISITION & REQUISITION MATTERS ( 5 )

Sub-Category

MATTERS CHALLENGING COMPENSATIONS. ( 502 )

Judicial Branch

Writ Section

Decision Date

06-May-2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--DISPOSED OFF

Last updated 05-Jun-2026

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.RAMKUMAR

    Adv. Pranjal Agrawal,RAMAKANT PATEL,RAMAKANT PATEL, ,RAMAKANT PATEL

  2. 2.Rajkumar

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.STATE OF CHHATTISGARH Advocate - A.G.

  2. 2.Collector Sakti,

  3. 3.LAND ACQUISITION

  4. 4.Executive Engineer,

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 06-May-2026

    Hon'ble Shri Justice Amitendra Kishore PrasadView PDF

    Case Summary: WPC/1733/2026 Ramkumar and Rajkumar sought compensation re-determination for land acquired for the Saradih Barrage project, arguing it was inadequate compared to enhanced awards granted to similarly situated land losers. The court directed the Land Acquisition Officer to expeditiously decide their pending Section 73 application within four months, considering relevant precedents, while noting the State did not oppose expedited disposal. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 04-May-2026

    Fresh Matters

    Hon'ble Shri Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad

  4. 23-Apr-2026

    Hon'ble Shri Justice Amitendra Kishore PrasadView PDF

  5. 15-Apr-2026

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  6. 01-Apr-2026

    Case filed

    Registration No. WPC/1733/2026

casestatus.in Summary

Case Summary: WPC/1733/2026 Ramkumar and Rajkumar sought compensation re-determination for land acquired for the Saradih Barrage project, arguing it was inadequate compared to enhanced awards granted to similarly situated land losers. The court directed the Land Acquisition Officer to expeditiously decide their pending Section 73 application within four months, considering relevant precedents, while noting the State did not oppose expedited disposal. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

District Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case