OtW c INTHE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH BILASPUR WRTT pmTiON U/A 227 NO. lu,s& OF 2010 tf, PETITIONERS : Ci'u'yn^iij^ o .-•• .\u .0-.. \ ^.'.^IC ^^ w .-^2, ^i^'^^'20 <A; n \.-'" RESPONDENTS : t^c>n-Uw"tnciiH Haseena Begum Widow of Late Naseer Khan, aged about 49 years. Rahmat Khan, S/0 Late Naseer Khan,aged about 27 years, Both are R/0 Darripara, Kawardha, District- Kabirdham, (C.G.). VERSUS - 1. Sayyed Ashique Ali Khan, S/0 A.B. Khan, Owner of the Vehicle Tata Spacio No. C.G.04-B/8479, R/0 near Mahamaya Temple, P.H.E.Office, Kawardha, District- Kabirdham, (C.G.). 2. United India Insurance Company Ltd., Divisional Office Krishna Complex, Kutchehry Chowk, Raipur, District- Raipur, (C.G.) ?- 4- rf=:^*^sg@^ WRIT PETITION U/A 227 OF THE CONSmTUTION OF INDIA 1 'S^ '^WMti, ®fl1y<IS,fqowy *ltH^i WW^ |Me-.^r6 l^ •/'R^ 200 3K^TT?°W(1pt3^!T) sn^i ^ii W\* w sn^i *t<i'd Tumane t^IIWafeiCT^I SB: Hon'Me Shrt Manindra Nlohan Shrifr»tava.J pe(itioner. aggrie|i^d 05-04-2010 Shri Sunit Sahu, counsel for the Heard on admission. This pelition has been filed P/1 by which the petitioner's application has been rejectBd. The petitioner has balance amount of award remaining petidoners are in need house. From the order impugned, it ^ rejectsd on the ground Biat no a real need of construction. The conskferatun that the amount has been The reasons recoided by the learned not suffer from any error of jurisdiction | counsel for the petitioner draws 11A52/2010 and certain photographs. lt| certificate and the phott^raphs or any the Court betow at the time when the consideration. Be that as it may, Ihis Court does order passed by the Court below. It woul^ the Court betow wtth Ihe appropriate retease of the balance amount. Accordingly, the petition is dismiss^d i>i<<iCT41i iiicf! ^ isTs> ifaK^K ^sifmsn^i by order dated 2/2/2)10 Annexure release of remaining amount of award r|xwed an application for reteasing the urjder deposits on the ground that the construdion of fbund ihat Ihe a lication has been been placed to show that ttiere js tearfied court below has also teken into lleposited for a period of 3 years onty. betow in rsjecting ifte appBcation do |or peryersity. At this stage, tearned of this Court to certificate dated [is not the case of petitioner that this material evidence was placed betore aprtlicatton was filed and was taken up for fd^ of money for solemtiization of marriage and documentslhave codrt attentjon ottfer ^iot find any reason to interiisre uwth the be open for the petiljoner to approach mat^rial, V any, in support of this claim for Sd/- s Manindra Mohan Shrivastava Judge