*1 ;g 1g ;4 / I m//\ V» IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATI'ISGARH AT BILASPUR WRIT pETnION (c ) No. $39 OF 2gg9 /" A /"’ PETITIONERS Baharu Lal SIO Kartik Ram Ganda' aged about 42 years RIO Village- Danot Post- Urdana TahSIl and District- Raigarh, (C.G.) VERSUS RE§PONDENTS : / (1) State of Chhattisgarh, through Secretary Revenue; D.K. S.Bhawan, Raipur, District- T Raipur, (C.G.) (2) Collector, Raigarh, District- Raigarh, (C.G.) ,.. (3) Executive Engineer, Kelo Project Division, Raigarh Sarvekshan District- Raigarh, (C,G.) (4) Sub Divisional Officer] Land Acquisition Officer, Raigarh, District— Raigarh, (CA3 X ‘ . aha->3 p WRIT PETITION U A 22$ OF THE CG-""w 5 / mm mm QO . .....w9Q3M$g&%;g0g? Wamatwma amwf‘a'qm SB : Hon’bie Shri Manindra Mohan 04=91 n29“ Shri Sunil Sahu, counsel fort Ms. Sunim Jain, Panel Lawye As the repiy has been fiied consent of the parties, the matter is The petitioner by this petitio has chaiienged award dated 261'5i09 (Annexure PI1) passed by the S bcDivisional Ofhcer, Raigarh by which compensation in lieu of acquisition o service iand heid by the petitioner, has been denied. Learned counsel for the peti oner submitted that the petitioner heid 2.469 hectares of land situated in vi age Dhanot. The petitioner is recorded as Bhu-Swami ofthe iand of above esoription and he has been enjoying the iand as servioe iand which granted to him before commencement of C.G. Revenue Code, 1959. The afore aid land has been acquired by the respondent authorities for Kelo proj Acquisition Act. The grievance of tr held by the petitioner in his capacity. as Bhumi Swami, by impugned award, e petitioner on the ground that the same $hrivasggva, J. petitioner. for the Statei respondents. by the respondent No.1 to 4, with the ard finaiiy. ct, by drawing proceedings under Land ie petitioner is that though the land was compensation has been denied to th is a service land. Learned counsel for the petii neither been granted alternative la acquired, as statedjn the order, nor: Learned counsel for the petitioner su on 26/05/09, till me date of tiiing oi alternative land. Leamed counsei for! the petitioner submits that though in the we am :ioner submitted that the petitioner has nd equivalent to the area of the land any compensation has been paid to him. bmits that though the award was passed *the petition, he was not provided any QA compensation, if under me policy of rehabiiitation, he is providsd an alt rnative land, as stated in the award as also in the retum tiled by the respo dents, he would not claim compensation in respect of the land already acqu Leamed State counsel refer ing to the award passed as also to the averments made in the return stat d that the Land Acquisition Officer has already passed an award in which at has been very categorically stated that the petitioner be granted another i nd for which instructions has aiso been sought from the Government. ln th return also, it has been stated that some other iand will be allotted to the pet ioner, if availabie, in consideration of he being a village servant. ln view of the submissions ade by learned counsei for the patties and the award passed by the Land cquisition Officer and in view of specihc submission before this Court that case of grant of allotted land, petitioner would not claim any compensation at‘this stage, it would be appropriate to dispose off this petition directing t e respondents to consider allotment of alternative land to the petitioner a stated in the award and in the return. Respondent No.4 shall take exped ’ous steps in the matter of allotment of g to allotment of alternative land to the petitioner shall be decided by the r pondents within a period of six months from the date of receipt of copy oft is order. , the iand is not allotted, the petitioner would be at liberty to’ revive his cle for grant of compensation. The petition is accordingly disposed off. Sd/- petition, the petitioner has ciaime‘ land to the petitioner. The case re l However, if for some reaso i Daepti Manindra Mohan Shrivastava. Judge swam me arm i i ‘n