^ :—78 3^ '^I^Ky»'4,tSTfly'16, R|<?iltiy,< MIMdl *41cb Wt 200 3n^?r VSSK (IJC|(-J«)<{K) W^I ?St fc'ti* Wtl 3II?^T **<i+ 'reiiwafCT an^r ^NfeT<ft¥t^mv^ '^^^ <n>l^i< ^sifnT aii^i WteLPetition (O No.328^008 (Sinale Bench PETmQNERS 1. lon'ble Mr. Justice bhirendra ttishra) 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. SPQNt>ENTS Vs 1. Vin4>d Kumar, aged about 60 years, son of Lat^ Sopal ftao Shadi. Mu|;und Rao, og/ed about 54 years, son of Lat^ 6opal Rao Shash. Sm'l'. Jyoti Kiran, cged about 45 years, ben^ghter of Late ©opalRao Shash & wife 6f (Sr. Vijoy Pole, resident of Anand Van Vart>ro, Distt. Chandrapur (M.H.) Surjanda, oged about 42 years, daughter of Lat^ Sopal Roo Shadi, wife of Shri Adiok ©hdfre,resident of I.TJ. Campus, Kanpur <u.it) Sfflf- Madhuri, doughter of Late Sopal Rao Shcjsh, oged about 3S yeas, wife of Shri Sh)(am Rao beshpande, resident of Primary Hecjlth Centre, Marwahi,, bistrict-Bilaspur. Mili|id , aged about 35 years, son of LaTe 6op|il Rao Shash. Smt. Prabhawati, aged about 80 years, wid^w of Late ©opalRao Siash. No.^, 2, 6 & 7 are residents of Tatya Para, Raittur (C.6.) Stojl'e of Chhatt'isgarh, •through +he 5ec^etary, Ministry of ftevenue/Senerat Adi^inistration Department, D.K.S. Bhi^nn, Mantrataya, Raipur. 2. Thd Collector, Raipur -«».. ^'.ejl XEJIIC9-78 c.>-;_..----i^ j^s' '^..._.--^ ^ ^t-Ss^" 3i^[ ?n R-fitti W sf^W a>*<iq> ^TCr-qpfi^q , yiTfly'K?, Ist^iy^ /N ^T / ffftfvW **41«h "^ 200 am!?r xi°ra? (1pf^a?T) 3. Th Present: Mr. B.P. Sharma, Advocate|f Mr. 6.K. Beriwal, Dy. Advo^ 17.1.2008 Heard. The grievance of No.4184/088 vide order the present petitioners authorit/ as wetl as orde^ was remitt'ed to +he cc^ accordance with the accordance with law. lands are situated in two post of +he competent Commissioner as per C.G. (for Aort the Acf), has the matt-er could not be petitioners have made sevi the fluthorities for after lapse of more than •Ihe dhted Had qn<ii7i<i1'f *i(H<nf ^f,fs(3t <Rfl^i< ^? siRiH ini^r Collector,^ur9 for the petitioner. ate Senerol for the 5'tate. petitioners is that this Court in M.P. 21.6.2005 allowing the writ petition of set aside the order of •the competent of the Board of Revenue and -the matter cotnpetent cuthorify for fresh decision in oUservations made in the said order in Furfther case of the petitioners' is that their |districts i.e. Raipur & burg ond since the ai^hority, who hoppened to be the Divisional Ceilihg on Agricultural Holdin9S Act, 1960 h|een abotished in the State of Chhattisgarh, before the competentauthority. The /^rol representations (Annexure P-4) before appo^tment of competent authority but even 1|wo years no notification has been issued by y !-»°aail&. ,-^ -. t-Ss3S •%. l-HG—78 .<•' ^.-^^ an^tw (<-li* TTSTT Sff^f sti*llct) Roshan/- 753; ^imw^, w^\V , Ritfiuy MI*1<»11 **<!* •WI. 200 sn^?T tisw (iyt-i«<iyiT) the State c^ipointing comj •ttie ceiling cases. Therel issue necessary cuthority for deciding thi Shri Beriwal, tearn submits that if the State Sovernment considered. In view of the respective parties, this petitioners to file fresh and the same Aall be period of six weeks' from accordance wi'th law. The petition is Certified copy as p< accot- 4»l'(:l^'l*i1-ftTFRff 'if^l^1^ <Rq<$l< ^sifiiHsi^r jietent authority for the purpo% of deciding fore, the^tate authorities be directed to notifica|'ion under the Act appointing competent case of the petitioners. id Deput/ Advocate Seneral for the State petilforiers file fresh representation before the detatli^g their grievances, then the same diall be N Isubmissions of teamed counsel for the p^tition is disposed of with a direction to the r^epresen'tation before the State Sovernment c|ecided by the State Sovernment within a tlie date of receipt of the representation in •dingty disposed of. r rules. Sd/- Dhirendra Mishra Judge