Q9 HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGABIBILASPUR W.P.(2271 No. 1822 of 2011 PETITIONERS 1 Visambhar Sahu, aged 70 years Lekhram Sahu, aged 48 years Netram Sahu, aged 35 years Bisahin Bai, aged 60 years Bisantin Bai, aged 58 years Shanti Bai, aged 56 years Godawari Bai, aged 32 years AII sons and daughters of late Kejaoo Ram Sahu, and R/o Tatibandh, Raipur (C,G.) Q I, ‘ ‘8 s/o. Khubiram Shri Sahu, Visambhar' aged Sahu, 45 years, R/o. Tatibandh Raipu, Tail and District Raipur (C.G.) Versus State f Chhattisgarh through Secreary, Revenue Dpartment, Mantralaya, DKS Bhawan, Raipur (C.G.) 2 Compete Authority, Urban Land Ceiiing Act, Raipur (C.G.) RIT PETITION UNR ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTN OF Imm\hwN M W DE IO INDIA Appearance : Mr. H.B. Agrawal, Sr. Advocate with Mrs. Meera Jaiswat, Advote for the petitioners. Mr. Arun Sao, Govt. Advocate for the State/respondents. (05.04.201 1 SUNIL KUMAR SINHA J. Heard. The petitioners are the iegai representatives of ejao Ram Sau. They have contended that a ceilin c was initiated against Kejaoo Ram and certain lands were directed to be taken by the Government, but neither the compensation was paid to Kejaoo Ram or his legal representatives nor the possession of the land was taken in terms of the Ceiling Case. The petitioners claim that they are in _ / r hs o t e nt RESPONDENTS 1 ca ORAL ORDER ) Ko h g ase 2 W.P.(227) No. 1822 ofzon @ continuous possession of the lands in question since the life time of Kejaoo Ram. Mr. H.B. Agrawal, learned Sr. Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners, would submit that the claim raised by the petitioners in the instant writ petition is similar to that of W.P. No. 2186/97 and many other connected matters in which an order dated 19‘“ of October,- 2010 (Annexure-P/4) has been passed. His further submission is that the. grounds raised by the petitioners in the writ petition have not been considered by the concemed authority while passing the order dated 23.3.2007 (Annexure—P/1). His submission is that this writ petition may be disposed of in terms of the order dated 19‘“ of October, 2010 passed in WP. No. 2186/97 and other connected matters. The above limited prayer made by learned counsel for the petitioners is notopposed by learned counsel for the State. In view Of the above, the writ petition is disposed of in terms of the order dated 19‘“ of October, 2010 passed in W.P. No. 21.86/97 and other connected matters. sit/5 3m KUMAR smHA Judge ,...,_...—- No order as to cost.