y HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR W.P.(C) No. 1062 of 2011 Ram Sai son of Late Shri Budru, aged about 77 years, ViHage- Larla, Tahsil- Katghora, District— Korba (C.G.) Versus 1 State ofC.G.Through: The Secretary, Department of Irrigation, ‘ Mantralaya, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (C.G.)V 2 The Executive Engineer, Hasdev Bango Dam Project, Etma Nagar, Machadoli, Korba, District— Korba . (C.G.) 3 The Sub Divisional Ofticer (Revenue), Katghora, District— Korba (C.G.) WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226/227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA Appearance : PETITIONER RESPONDENTS Mr. R.K. Jaiswal, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Arun Sao, GovtsAdvocate for the State/respondents on advance copy. ORAL ORDER (24.02.2011) \\\ SUNIL KUMAR SINHA, J. Heard finally with the consent of Iearned counsel for the parties. Mr. R.K. Jaiswal, Iearned counsel for the petitioner, submits that the petitioner is land oustee. The land of the petitioner has been acquired by the State in Hasdev Bango Dam Project. The possession of land of the petitioner was taken long back by the Government, but no compensation has been awarded till date. He submits that many other similarly situated persons whose Iands have been acquired in the above project have been suitably compassionated by the Government, but, the petitioner has been discriminated. He also submits that in this regard, the petitioner and other affected persons have already sent representations to the Collector and the concerned authorities on 15.1.2008, but even after that the \x [compensation has not been paid. Therefore, a suitable direction may be 2 W.P.(C) No. 1062 of 2011 [UV issued to the State authorities to make payment of compensation to the petitioner for acquisition of Iand in question. On the other hand. Mr. Arun Sao, learned Govt. Advocate appearing on behalf of the respondents, submits that if, in fact, the land of the petitioner has been acquired by the State in the said project, compensation would have been paid to the petitioner. Mr. Jaiswal submits that the petitioner may be permitted to file a detailed representation before the Collector and the Collector may be directed to dispose of the representation within the stipulated period granted by this Court. The above prayer made by learned.counsel for the petitioner is not opposed by‘the learned counsel for the State. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, particularly considering the documents annexed with writ petition, this writ petition is disposed of with the direction that if so advised, the petitioner may me a fresh representation along with all relevant documents and the copy of the order passed by this Court before the concerned Collector within 1 month from today, and if such a representation is filed, the Collector shall dispose of the same as early as possible preferably within a period of 4 months from the date of its tiling by passing a reasoned order on the Same. With the above observation/direction, the writ petition stands finally disposed of. There shall be no orders as to cost. Sd/- Sunil Kumar Sinha Judge vatti