Bilaspur : The High Court of Chhattisgarh has upheld a previous ruling dismissing an appeal for increased compensation by a resident affected by the Naya Raipur Development Plan. The Division Bench, comprising Chief Justice Ramesh Sinha and Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, affirmed that individuals occupying government land are entitled only to ex gratia payments rather than market-value compensation.
The case was brought forward by Kamtaprasad Ratre, a 69-year-old resident of Baroda village. Ratre had been in possession of 1.92 hectares of government land since before November 1992. Under the Naya Raipur Rehabilitation Policy, the government established a high-power committee to provide relief to those displaced by the city’s development. In 2013, the committee decided to grant ex gratia payments to long-term encroachers based on the 2011-12 Collector Guidelines.
Following an inquiry, authorities deemed Ratre eligible for compensation and sanctioned a payment of ₹3.36 lakhs. However, Ratre challenged this amount, arguing that the Naya Raipur Development Authority (NRDA) had overstepped its bounds by unilaterally altering the compensation rates set by the State Government. His legal counsel contended that the guideline rate should have resulted in a higher payout and that the NRDA lacked the legal standing to modify state-level policy.
The respondents, represented by the State and NRDA counsel, argued that the compensation was calculated strictly according to established policy frameworks. They maintained that the NRDA acted within its statutory powers to implement and clarify the rehabilitation scheme.
In its judgment, the High Court noted that the law distinguishes clearly between titled land owners and those encroaching on government property. The court found that the 2011-12 guidelines specifically provided for ex gratia relief for encroachers, not the full market value of the land.
“The appellant is entitled only to ex gratia compensation as per the Collector Guidelines,” the Bench stated, adding that the NRDA’s administrative decisions were consistent with state policy. The court also observed that while Ratre had not withdrawn the ₹3.36 lakhs already deposited, the calculation itself was legally sound. Finding no jurisdictional error or perversity in the earlier Single Judge’s decision, the High Court dismissed the appeal.
Case Title : Kamtaprasad Ratre vs State Of Chhattisgarh and Others (WA No. 352 of 2026)