'<s'f'-' t. ',..,-•' y HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR BiV|SIS)&LBENSH Coram HON'BLE SHRI RAJEEV GUPTA, GJ. & HON'BLE SHRI SUNIL KUMAR SINHA, J. APPELLANTS PETITIONERS: WRIT APPEAL No. 46 of 2009 1. KrishnaLal Sahu, S/o Shri Gopi lal Sahu, agedabout 48 years, 2. Ghanshyam Chandrakar, S/o Shri Bhawanilal Chandrakar, aged about 43 yeare. 3. Krishnarao Markenday, S/o Shri Alakharam Markenday, aged about 34 years, atl resident of village Bgaud Post Bagaud Tahsll Kurud, Dist. Dhamtari (C.G.) RESPONDENTS (Respondents) Silirf3 VERSUS 5. State of Chhattisgarh Through the Secretary Revenue/lndustries Department, D.K.S. Bhawan, Mantralaya, Raipur (C.G.) The Cotlector Dhamtari and Posted under secretary Chhattisgarh Govemment Revenue Department, District- Dhamtari (C.G.) The Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue) Kurud, Tahsil Kurud, Distt. Dhamtari (C.G.) The Land Acquisition Officer Kumd Tahsil Kurud, Distt. Dhamtari (C.G.) The General Manager District and Industries center, Distt. Dhamatari (C.G.) WRn- APPEAL UNDERSECTION 2 (11 OF THE CHHATTISGARH HIGH COURT (APPEAL TO DIVISION BENCHt ACT^ 2006 READ WITH RULE 157(101(0 OF THE CHHATTISGARH HIGH COURT RULES.2007 Present Shri R.S. Patel, learned counsel for the appelfants. Shri Sumesh Bajaj, learned Govemment Advocate for the State/respondents. Shri toshif Shakeel, learned counsel for the Caveator JUDGMENT >th (18m February. 2009) The foltowing judgment of the Court was passed by Rajeev Gupta,C.J.: Learned counsel for the parties are heard on admlssion. 2. The appellants have filed this writ appeal agalnst the impugned order dated 16.01.2009, passed in W.P. (C) No.2769/2008. 3. The appellants/petitioners had filed the writ petition for the following reliefs: "10.1 This Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to call for entire records from the respondents. 10.2 That this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue a writ of certiorari and quash the impugned Notification/Notice dated 10.08.2007 (Anx.P/6), 7.12.2007 (Anx.P/8), 8.2.2008(Ann.P/11),and 14.03.2008(Annx.P/12). 10.3 That this Hon'bte Court may kindly be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus to the respondents and direct they may not acquire the questioned agricultural land. 10.4 This Hon'ble Court may further be pleased to pass an appropriate order or issue writ as deemed fit under the facts and circumstances of the case." 4. The petitioners, thus, in substance, were seeklng quashing ofthe notiflcations/notices dated 10.08.2007,7.12.2007, 8.2.2008 and 14.03.2008. 5, The matter relates to acquisltion of appellants'/petitionere' agricultural land for the purpose of establishing l-1erbal Park. 6. Leamed Single Judge taking note of the faet thert in the acquisition proceedings an award was passed on 17.04.2008 i.e. much before flling of the writ petftion by the appellants/petitioners, declined to entertain the writ petition. 7. On due consideration of the submissions of leamed counset for the parties and considering that in the land aGquisition proceedings an award has already been passed on 17.04.2008, we do not find any infirmity in the impugned order which may warrant interference in this Intra - court appeal. 8. The wrlt appeal, therefore, is liable to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed summarily, - —- Sd/- Chief Justice Sd/- SUNIL KUMAR SINHA Judge subbu