Cgj j/f/ IN THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTIseARH AT BILAsPUR REVIEW PETITION No. 31:3 /201o WW WW PETITIONERS “V1. Kumar Ban Goswami, S/o Lafe ag‘:\‘ki§$%‘i Kailash Ban Goswami, aged 58 years, ”5f. QC 47 E‘xkxw 2. Vijaypal Ban Goswami,S/o. la‘re «é'wééil $w &3\ w” Kailash Ban Goswami, aged 48 years, «63% WW. Rishi Ban Goswami, S/o. la’re Kailash Ban Goswami, aged 46 years W4; Rajendra Ban Goswami, S/o. laTe Kailash Ban Goswami, aged 44 years 5 Rupendra Ban Goswami, S/o. Shri MM Rishi Ban Goswami, aged 22 year's, All R/o. Ghorapa‘ra, Tahsil Kafghora, Dis’rricf Kor‘ba (C.G.), VERSUS RESPONDENTS 1 STaTe of Chhaf‘risgar‘h Through The W Secre'l'ary Revenue/ Indus’rr'ies DeparTmen‘r, D.K.S. Bhawan Man’rmlaya, Raipur (C.G.) 2. ,e The CoHecfor’ Kor‘ba and Posted W under Secrefary Chhaf’risgarh Government Revenue Deparfmenf, Dis’rricf-Korba (6.6.) 3. The Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue) X. W/ KaTghora, Dis‘rric’r Korba (C.G.) 4 The Land Acquish‘ion Officer, KaTghor'a, Tahsil Kafghom, Disfricf‘ Korba (C.G.) 5. The Genemt Manager, N.T.P.C. ‘M/ Limited, Korba, Dis’rric‘r Korba (CG). REVIEW PETITION UNDER sECTION m OF THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, 1908 OF ORDER DATEp 13537-2010 (ANx-P-Z) IN w.P.(C) No.2‘5”§§/2o1o :gx § 9g - 1 HIGH $0URY OF CHHATTISGARH tM’ WLASPUR REWEW PETHWN NQ. 12$ OF EMQ Pmitmnem Kumar Ban Gaswami & Othem Versus R$Ep0nd9m5 Stata of Chhattiggarh & Others REVIEW PETITKDN UNDER SECTION 114 OF THE CODE OF CNIL PROCEDURE, 1908 OF ORDER DATED 13—07-2010 WE : Hun’ma Mr. $amsh K. Agmhmri, JJ Pmswam :— Shr§ RSPa‘ceL Advocate for the petitioners. 8hr} Sushi! Dubey: Govt. Advocate with Shri M.P.S.Bhatia, Dy. Govt Advocate for the State. ORQER (ORAL) (Pasosd on 05‘“ day of January, 201 1) 1 By thig petition, the review petitioners seeks review of the order dated 13.072010 passed in W.P.(C) N0. 2525/2010 which wao disposed of with a direction to the State/reepondente to consider and decide the objectione raieed by the petitionere on 7.112009 and 17.62.2010 (Annexure P/2 amt P/5 to WP.(S) No, 2525/2010) in accordance with iaw before proceeding in the lend acquieition proceedinge at the earlieet. 2. Learned couneei appearing for the review petitioner eubmite that tiii date, the respondent euthoritiee have not decided the objectione of the petitioner? thee, a time frame may be fixed for coneidering and deciding their obiection. 3. On perueet of the order dated 18.7.2010 (Annexure P/2) it ie evident that the petitionere confined their prover to the extent that their objections may he decided before proceeding with the ecquiettton of the iand and the State couneet hoe ateo eubmitted that in the event, the oht'eotione were not coneicteredi the same would be considered at the eartteet. iwg 4. N9 cagg has men made out for review of the mid mder. The contention of {he petitioner i3 mat some time frame may be fixed, cannot be considered at thie stage as in the order dated 13.7201 C) steeh‘, whioh §s sought to be reviewed, it has been observed that if raised the have not been considered; the objections raised by petitioners the same shalt be done at the earttest befove proceeding further in the tend acquisition pioceedingei if there is a violation of the order, the petitioners have other appropriate forum, not fiiing of the review petition. i5. in view ofthe above; the review petition is diemiseecii / r r J r“ “ $leee"‘w‘ Sat'xS‘n 3“}m‘e ashoK