•<v HlGHCOURTOFCHHATnSGARH.BILASPUR PETITIONER RESPONDENTS W.P.fCl N6.1161of2011 Syam Sunderson of Late Shri Tilak, aged about 82 years, Village- Larla, Tahsil- Katghora, District- Korba (C.G.) Viersus __ 1 State ofG.G. Through: The Spcretary, Department of Irrigation, Mantralaya, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (C.G.) 2 The Executive Engineer, Hasdev Bango Dam Prpject, Etma Nagar, Machadoli, Korba, Distriet- Kbrba (C.G.) 3 The Sub Divisional Offieer (Revenue), Katghora, District- Korba (C.G.) ' WRIT PETITIONUNDERARTieLE226/2270FTHECONSTITUTION OFINDIA ADDearance: Mrs. Ranjana Jaiswal, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. M.P.S. Bhatia, Dy.Govt.Advocate for theState/respondentson advanceeopy. ORAL ORDER (03.03.2011) ^ SUNIL KUMARSINHA.J. Heard finally with theconsent oflearned counsel forthe parties. Mrs. Ranjana Jaiswal, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that the petitioner is land oustee..The land of the petitioner has been acquired by the State in Hasdev Bango Dam Project. The possession of land of the petitioner was taken long back by the Govemment, but no compensation has been awarded till date.SHe submits that manyother similarly situated persons whose lands have been acquired in the above project have been suitably compassionated by the Goyernment, but, the petitioner has been diseriminatedSHealsosubmits thatin this regard, the petitioner and other affected persons have already sent Tepresentations •y : • : .. : •• :: ; ' • ^' .. •: ;"' : -' : : ' to the Ccdlector and the coneemed authorities ori 15.1.2008, but even that th6 compensEitipn has not been paid. Therefore, a suitable T^"""^^^7'^"' ^S^Sss^gsy^^,...^^ W.P.fCTNo.l 161 of2011 <^> direction may be issued to the Stateauthoritiesto make paymentof compensation to the petitioner for acquisitionof land in question. On the other hand. Mr. M.P.S. Bhatia, learned Dy. Govt. Advocate appearing on behalf of the respondents, submits that if, in fact, the land of the petitioner has been acquired by the State in the said project, compensation would have been paid to the petitioner. Mrs. Jaiswal submits that the petitioner may be permitted to file a detailed representation before the Collector and theCollector may be directed to dispose of therepresentation within the stipulated period granted by this Court. The above prayer made by learned counsel for the petitioner is not opposed by the leamed counsel for the State. Considering the factsand circumstances ofthe case,particularly considering the documents annexed with writ petition, this writ petition is disposed ofwith the direction that if so advised, the petitioner may file a fresh representation alongwith all relevant documents and the copy of the order passed by this Court before the concerned Collector within 1 month from today, and if such a representation is filed, the Collector shall dispose of the same as early as possible preferably within a period of 4 months fromthe date of its filing by passing a reasoned order on the same. With the above observation/direction, the writpetition stands finally disposed of. There shall be no orders as to cost. A^utttar jttA?,e «Aotea vatti