/ 3 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BILASPUR (CHHATTISGARH) PETITIONER yf W^P. NQ. f350 OF 2001f SureetRam Anant S/o. Late Halalkhor ..•^Caste Satnami, aged about 65 years , ^ '9 ...•••- ., • ' " ~ ~ ..••"°' •-..••* ^<}? ^",..,-^..--'" o.ccupation - farmer, R/o village - ...•••'" /."-',r 'S(p/> ..••••'" Patadhi, Tah. & Distt. Bilaspur- fC. -M^--"" ~~~'~" ^^•<^'{^""" ^^'"^^' ^ - '.^-' RESPONDENTS Patadhi, Tah. & Distt. Bilaspur- (C.G.) VERSUS 1. State of Chhattisgarh, through Collector Korba (C.G.) .^,,^ ,y0-; 'Xi '..A^^; 4, <*• ^. ''fy '^-,. '1/ f'ktt .%...'°' -y »'t..•/ Land Acquisition Officer ( Sub Divisional Officer ) Korba, Korba (C.G.) Lanco Amarkantak Power Private Ltd. Through - Chief Executive Officer, Patadhi, Korba ( C.G.) Tireeth Ram S/o Late Halalkhor, aged about 68-years , R/ovillage - Patadhi, Tah. 85 Distt. Bilaspur (C.G.) !!' WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLBS 226/227 OF THE COITSTITUTION OF INDIA ^ f •'' HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR ^r S.B. : HON1BLB SHRI MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA. J. Writ Petition No. 1990 of 2006 PBTITIONBR RESPONDBNTS Sureet Eam Anant Versus State ofChhattisgarh 85 Ors. Petition u/Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India Appearance: Shri Rajeev Bharat, coiuisel for fhe petitioner. Shri V.V.S. Murfhy, Dy. Advocate General for fhe State/respondents No. 1 & 2, on advance copy. ORAL- ORDBR (Passedon 23.3.2011) Heard on admission. 1 2. This petition is dtrected against the order dated 18.7.2005, by whlch the Land Acquisitlon Officer/Sub Divisional Officer, Korba has rejected petitioner's objection regardmg his cteim for payment of compensation m fhe matter of acquisition of land and directed payment of compensation to respondent No.4. "I / 3. According to the petitioner, the compensation ought to be paid to the petitioner because the land which has been acqi.iired, fell to share of the petitioner in a famUy partftion. It is fhe case of fhe -2- petitioner that even though an objection was made, that was Aot property considered and fhe Land Acquisition Officer has recommended for payment of compensation to respondent No.4. 4. Leamed counsel for fhe respondent/State, refemng to the report dated 28.5.2005 of the Sub Divisional Officer (Rj, submits fhat fhe Sub Divisional Officer has considered fhe claim of various persons and has submitted a report, on the basis of which, later on, award has also been passed. He submits tta.t tf the petitioner * has any such claim, his remedy is to seek Reference as contemplated under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act of 1894"}. 5. The dispute, in substance, raised by the petitioner is wifh regard to his clatm for grant of compensation tn respect of (he land acquisition. That kind of dispute clearly falls wifhin fhe purview of Section 18 of the Act of 1894. Therefore, fhe petitioner, instead of ffling of this petition, ought to have approached the concemed authority to seek his remedy, as provided under Section 18 of the Act. 6. Therefore, I am not mclined to entertain fhis petition. However, taking into consideration that this petition was liled on 8.11.2005, on account of which, the petitioner has not taken any remedy under Section 18 of the Act of 1894, it is du'ected fhat in case fhe petitioner subraits appropriate application before fhe -3- Prscveen. concemed authority as required under Section 18 of the Act o'f 1894, within a period of 2 months from today, the concemed authority shall take appropriate decision on the application in fhe matter of makmg Reference, without going tnto (he question of limitation provided under tfae Act. 7. With the aforesald observations, the petition is finally disposed of. Sd/- M.M. Shrivastava Judge .»-• i!'11