"^^IQU a //- << IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATnSGARH. BILASPUR Writ Petition (C) No. ^ ^ 2__ 0/207^ Petitioner : / SANGEETAG^"G,AGED-42YRS., w/o DESK DEEPAK GARG, R/o 9, South Avenue, Chaube Colony, Raipur RESPONDENTS: ^•^ »»•' ;.,..-•\ ^,/c. ,^^..^\^' ,^"' ^-•"•)1 C^A'^SV- v Versus / i. Naya Raipur Development Autliority, Thro' its Chairman, Office at: Near Mantralaya, Mahanadi Gate, Raipur (CG) 2. Collcctor ^Revemie'') Raipur .^•" WR1T PETITiON UNDER ARTICLE 226 TKE CONSTiTUTlON OF JNDiA y PETiTiONER Sangeeta Garg, Aged - 42 Years, W/o Desh Deepak Garg, R/o 9, South Avenue, Chaube Colony, Raipur. IFSSQ^»&arhSSftiT'£ 1. Naya Raipur Development Authority, Thro' its Chairman, Office at: Near Manfralaya, Mahanadi Gate, Raipur (C.G.) 2. Collector \^{StS°f v^^ftw, ssslaailvc. Mr. Raja Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner. !V!r. A.S. Kachhawaha, Advocate for respondent No.1 Mr. Arun Sao, Govt. Advocate for respondent No.2. Hearu finaily with the consent of tearned counsel for the parties. Learned counset for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is the owner of the lanu bearing Khasra No. 300 & 320 situated in Village Kuhera, P.C. No. 70/17, R.i.C. Mandir Hasaud, Tehsil Aarang, District Raipur. There was a consent for acqultlon of the iand on payment of compensation thereof on the basis of the fact that the said iand was irrigated land. Thereafter, the compensation is being determined treating the same to be non-irrigated land. iVir. A.S. Kachhawaha, learned counsel for respondent No.1 and Mr. Arun Sao, Go\>t. Advocate for respondent No.2/State submitted that there is dispute with t'egaru to nature of the land, as according to the respondents, !t is non-irrigated land and according to the petltioner, it is an irrigated land. However, the respondent authorities are going to determine and give compensation to the petitiuner as eariy as possibie, having regard to the nature of the land. Learned counsei for the respondents further submitted that, it sha!! be considered and 'decided at the eariiest within a period of eight weeks. // "°'"<M. '•<i-- ''-,;;?-•"'•<& ^ te that as it may, if a representation is made by the petitioner to the authorities/Coilector, Raipur, questioning the natyre of the iand, the same shai! be considered and decided.in accordance with taw and on its own merits, before determining the compensation. in view of foregoing, according to learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, nothing sun/ives Tor adjudication at this stage. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed off. Sd/- Kumar Judge Siaha