c^ 1 IN THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH ATBILASPUR Civil Revision No. c 2009 APPLICANTS CLAIMANTS f'" 1] Chhedilal Patel, S/o. Ganpat Marar, Aged about 65 years^ 2] Pirtu Ram, S/o. Firat Sahu, Aged about 67 years, '..'r^ ; '.^}~s ,,y^."^^^3] Kirit Ram, S/o. Hichchharam Teli, Aged •• s /. • 1 it'C"\' ' .-.;t:' .<-<"lfl" ^:At^^"' C ^$??"; '^""" about 70 years., ^4] Narayan, S/o. Fagua Yadav, Aged about 39 years.> •5] Ram Singh, S/o. Tetku Thethwar, Aged about 55 years., /,6] Baisal<hu, S/o. Fagua Rawat, Aged about 55 years, /7] Atmaram Dhruw, S/o. Tangu, Aged about 50 years., r8] Haral<h Ram, S/o. Sahadev Yadav, Aged about 50 years, ,9] Kumar Kannoje, S/o. Shankar Kannoje, Aged about 25 years., ^40] Somnath Patel, S/o. Chheduram Marar (Patel), Aged about 43 years, 11] Hriday Ram, S/o. Gopal Rawat, Aged about 32 years, ^12] Sakha Ram, S/o. Ghasiya Teli, Aged about 45 years, ^P] Mannulal Dhruw, S/o. Atma Ram Gond (Dhruw), Aged about 32 years, \^[ Lalita Bai, D/o. Jeevrakhan Yadu, Aged about 40 years, 1^1 Ramji S/o. Mangalu Yadu (Rawat), Aged about 60 years, lj5] Patram @ Patiram, S/o. Ghasiya Teli (Sahu)., Aged about 40 years, 17j Shiv Prasad Sahu, S/o. Ghasiram Teli (Sahu), Aged about 45 years, l§j/ Shriram Sahu, S/o. Hichchharam Sahu (Teli), Aged about 45 years, 19] Rajo, D/o. Pran Rawat, Aged about 30 /" years, 20^| Heeradhar, S/o. Gopal Rawat., Aged about 30 years, 21J^ Mahesh, S/o. Firangi Yadu, Aged about 30 years, 2^} Jagdish, S/o. Ghasiya Sahu, Aged about 30 years., 23--]- Dayaram, S/o. Jagatram Rawat (Yadav), Aged about 45 years, 24], Atma Ram, S/o. Jhadu Yadu, Aged aBout 40 years, All above R/o. village Semariya, Tahsil Palari, District Raipur (CG) .\..^.\ VERSUS RESPONDENT : ^Executive Engineer, Public Works NON-APPLICANT €Department, Division No.2, Baloda Bazar, District Raipur (CG) REVISION UNDER SECTION 115 OF CQDEOF dYIL PROCEDURE READ WITH SECTION IJLOIOF THE LAND ACQUISITION ACT, 1894 rn^M ISilk lirii' {fit HSGMGauR^OFCHHftTTISGARHAl-Btt-ASPUR S^5^iBesich:MGR^eShn4ustic^PrashaiitKwnaFMIsh^ GvOTl%evisionNo.02of2< 9 APPUCANTS SESgQN.DENT' Versus ChhetfilatPatetandothers ExecutiveEnglneer RE¥ISION-'UNDe^SBS1'!ON:::^i^ll-©iH^;.itl(^ READ^THSE^ON18^^W^El.^Bj &£»^l'ri€)N .1894,'l':-?'i.-/;.:;l::^.:i" ^::-': •'...l..''?:-:;^f'?'-'l''';'''/''^ ShnManqParar^,€^rt^^ttiteapplscar$ts.^^ Shri Ajay D^vedi, Deputy <^vt AdvoGat&for^ ;CiEAt.:ll]'ORDER. (24.07,201^ Heard. (2) The^^itGar^ toe G^led m ^y^tson ^ Aridlttonat GNec^r, Baloda Bazar on 15-Q^-2(K)8^^^^^^^^^r^ i ;'.;:. ^^.•-•••.:-',':'^^^^ applicationtinderSec^nlSofthel^r^ Act) for referring the ffisrtter to the D|stric|t Gourt for awardlng appropri^e amount of compensation. ! /.; ••-.•":'. (3) The land ^q Annexure A/2. The appllcants moved an appisoatson under Section 18 ofthe Act beforethe Sub Dwislonal Offteer {l4ndAc^uisi^h<)ff^^ on 11-10-:3x)6 however; v^ennoaction^stakenonthssapp}!^^^ :Tjl^''..-l;^;-''^ they moved ans^her appllcsrtioh befbre the Sub pivlslonstt Qfficer (Land Acquisitlon Oftteer), BatodaBazaron 18-02-^08 vide ftnnexure A/4. ^ St was stated in fiis appSlcatlon thsA the applrcants haye moyed an eariler apptication untiler Section 18 ofthe Act oh 11-10-2£^. !N r 1 ^ .^ ~2.< (4) The Additlonal CoStector, Balwla Bazar has disnii^^^^^^^^^^ appliGatlonfiiedon 18-02-2cx)8 bytioldmgthe^ Hmttation wsthoyt apRreclating that an eartler appiteatson fst^l by the applicants on 11 -10-2006 was pendlng and m faet th®appttcatlon flrwts mentloned in the order sheet ^ated 18-Q2-^X)8 Itself. (5) Learned counsel for the applicants sybmtts that the Add'rtsonal Cotlector, BaSoda Bazar has not properSy appreclated and examlned the contents of the appllcation moved by the apptfeants and has oNy cbnsidered the seccmd appllcation Ignorlng the flrst appiteation. (6) On perusai of the documents annexed wth the clvil revislon It would clearlyappearthattheflFstappSteatjonunderS^tton 18, rnoved on 11-10-2006, was withln the period prescribed under Sectlon 18 of theAct. .' •.; :',' ., .1. : -. ' . , : •,.•. .r (7) Snviewofthe above^thisCourtftndsthattheappSicatiGn^^^^^ the applteants under Sectlon 18 6f the Act was wlthln rsmttation and shoutct have been referred to the District Goyrt for adjudtcatton. (8) The revlslon suc^eeds and is alSowed. The impugned order is set-aside. The Additional Coilector, Baloda Bazar is directed to refer the matter foradjudicatlon to the Dlstrict Court m accordance wlth taw. Sd/- prashantKumarMishra Judge _, ^^^sS^^iaM