^n -f.r. l^...- •fv,\8^ >. .-^-::^;y^ ^"K "X- S lod Singlefiench ?:3----ToTi»^l- c IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT © BILASPUR Writ Petition (C) No. £S"? ./201 Petitioner Respondents / Daljeet Bagga, Age 61 years, Son of Shri Harkishan Das Bagga, Resident of C-291, Shailendra Nagara, Raipur, Tehsil and District Raipur (C.G.) Versus 1. State of Chhattisgarh, Through Chief Secretary, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (Chhatdsgarh). 2. Collector, Raipur Ghari Chauk, Collectorate, Raipur (C.G.). 3. Land Acquisition Officer, S.D.M. office (Revenue) Raipur (C.G.). 4. Chhattisgarh State Housing Board, Thhrough The Chairman, Shankar Nagar, Raipur (C.G.) RIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA FOR ISSUANCE OF WRIT IN THE NATURE OF MENDAMUS, PROHIBITHON. ORDER OR DIRECTION IN THE UKE NATURE. PETiTIONER RESPONDENTS HiGH COURT OF CHHATTiSGARH : BILASPUR ?!T PETITiON (C) N0. 6308 OF 2011 Daljeet Baaaa Versus State of Chhattisgarh & Others (Writ Petition under Articie 226 of the Constitution of india) Single Bench : Hon'ble Shri Satish K. Agnihotri, J. Present:- Shri Pradeep Mishra, Advocate forthe petitloner. Shri Arun Sao, Government Advocate for the State. ORDER (Passed on this 21st day of October, 2011) 1. By this petition, the petrtioner seeks a direction to ihe respondsnl authorities lo stay the proceedings initiated by the respondent No.2 for canceliation of the petitioner's quarry !ease on a part of ihe land bearing Khasara No.638, admeasuring area 2.32 acres, P.H.No.111 of village Pirda, Tahsii & District Raipur (C.G.) and further direction to the respondent No.2 to give proper opportunity to the petitioner for raising his obieciions and to obtain adequate compensation in the land acquisition proceeding No.OI/A'82/2007-08. 2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is t'ne owner of a stone crusher unit situated at viilage Pirda of District Raipur. The respondent No.2 ailotted quarry lease to the petitioner for digging oui stone bouiders for a period of ten years on a part of land bearina Khasra No.638, admeasuring 8rea2.32 acres, P.H.No.111 of vi!!age Pirda, Tahsil & Districl Raipur, in the year 1997. On 16.12.2007, the said iease was renewed for further period of ten years i.e. upto s i" ?ni"l? s s . 3. On 31.10.20p7, the Coitector issued a notincation under Seotion 4(1) of the Land Acquis'rtion Act, 1894 (for short "the Act, 1894")for acquisition of tne above mentioned land and subsequently declaration under Section 6(1) of the Act, 1894, was issued by the State Govt. on 01.02.2QOS. On 14.03.2008, the Land Acquisition Officer issued notice Vf 6. under Section 9 ofthe Act, 1884 to the interested pereons ofthe vitlage, but no notice in this rsaard was issued to the petitioner and on 08.10.2008, the respondent No.3 after enquiry about ihe objections, compensation and other relevant maliere of interested persons made flnal award under Section 1 1 ofthe Act, 1894. It appears that the land in disputewas not involved. Thereafter, after a period of two years i.e. on 03.08.2010, the respondent No.3 sent a letter to the office of respondent No.2 informing of the knowledge about the quarry lease of ihe petitioner and sought particulars of the quafry lease. The petitioner came to know about the said proceedings oniy after 03.08.2010. On 25.02.2011, the respondent aulhorities iniliated the proceeding for cancellation of the iease of the petitioner in an arbifrary manner and issued a notice under Ruie 30(26) of the Chhattisgarh Minor Minerais Ruies, 1996 and asked the petitioner to submil his response within a period of 60 days. Pursuant therelo, the petitioner submitted his response on 23.04.2011. According to the petiiioner, again on 07.09.2011, the respondent authorities issued a notice and asRed the petitioner to appear before the respondent No.2. However, the said date was postponed on account of administrative reasons. On bare perusai of the record, it appeare Ihat the petitioner has failed to produce any document in support of his contention that any adverse order has been passed against the interest ofthe petitioner. It appears fhat the matler is pending consideralion before the respondent authorities and before passing any order, the pelitioner has straightaway approached''lhis Court. Thus, this petition is premature, as no finai order \ • on receipt ofthe response ofthe petitioner, has been passed, as pointed out by ihe leslrned counsel'for the peiitioner, also. As an upshot, the writ petition being bereft of merit and is hereby dismissed being premature. — ^ Satish K. Agnihotri Judge SSSss^^^SS^SCss te^—^^5^s£