s3S' 3 M THE H1SH COURT OF JUDiCATURE AT BILASPUR CHHATTISGARH W.P. NQ. 3^075 /2005 PETITIONERS 1] /^ ai /^ >Yj<-?> 2] s-.-' ^^'/ ~/<^-y •1/M9/ './.<^?y 3] RESPONDENTS 3] fvlandhandas Habiani. Aged about 79 yrs. S/o. Late Bhuraigai Habiani, R<'o- C-36, Vailabh Nagar, Raipur (C.G-). Prakashchand HaW,a"s, Aged about 48 years, S/o. Fiiandhandas Hablani, R/o. C-36, Vallabh Nagar, Raipur (C.G.). Bheeshmanarayan Hablani, Aged about 24 years. S/o. Prakashchand Hablani, R/o. C- 36, Vaiiabh Nagar, Raipur (C.G.). Smt Jaya Habiani, Aged about 44 yeare, W/o. Prakashchand Hantiiani. R/o- C-36, Vallabh Nagar, Raipur (C.G.). VERSUS State of Chhattisgarh. Through: Secretaiy, Environmenta! & Arban Devetopment Deparunent, D.K.S. Bhawan Raipur, Distt. Raiuur (C.G.) Raipur Devetopment Authority, Through: its Chief Execub've Officer, G.E. Road, Raipur, Distt. Raipur (C.G.) The Chief Executive Qfficer, Raipur Development AuLhority, First Floor, R.D.A. Building, Bajrang Market, <3.E. Road, Raipur (C.G.) WRtTPETfTIpN UNDER ARTiCLE 226/227 OF THE CONSTiTUTlON OF iNDtA XI-HC-22 sn^r^i f?;IW3TI^T aiiira;fffB(T -<• -: ^ S^'STPIRW, ESTfl'a'IS, 3ii^i 4a®h —.\A'.$'.tS!.P.>..<S^.fco- HltlMI sbNI* ••••-•••••••••—•••• ^ ^ <J sn^rsRiTWHfsg' 8-8.2006 No.1 Shri Manoj Paranjpe, cou|nsel for the petitioners. Shri Sandeep Dubey, povt. Advocafe for the State/respondent Shri Pankaj ^rawal. coutiset for respondents No.2 and 3. Heard. The petitionere' case is| Khasra Nos. 266/3 to 266/1$ situated at Patwari Halka No.114. ad measuring 0.607 hectares thro(igh registered sate cteed from the original owners and the said lands we names aiso. However, R. D. A. under the Land Acquisition Act exchange of their land, but R. ^rafesft.rimRif^te^; ^3I^T3l1^?r that they purchased the iands bearing e recorded in the revenue record in their without following the procedure prescribecl sold the said property of the pefitioners to different persons. The petitioiters were asked ttiat they WtU be allotted with the other suitable equival^nt land situated at Katora Talab Sector-7, and with that understanding flie peh'tjoners moved an application for [D. A. has not taken any decision on their applicaflon. As per mutual agr^ement 40%ofthe ianc) in questton was to be ailotted to the petitioners. Therefore, learned counjsei iw the petitioners" submitted that the petitioners may be allowed to i^iake a representation to respondent No.2 and in turn respondent No.2 b^ directed to decide the representation as has been in the other simil^r cases viz. W.P. Nos.31(®/2005 and 3244/2005 to which learned cc|unsel for respondents No.2 and 3 has no objection. Havinfl regard to the <^cts and circumstances <rf the case, the petitioners are directed to mak^ a detaited representation raising alf their XI-HC-22 3i]^Tg;r f^riERsn^r gitlWBfScT Ban/e 's^ff^sS^sSs-f "^ 3^ "!<1^1<1<<, tilTn<-l'IS, fsfll'My Sll^l <4;|eh liWWI Shllcft wr 200 aii^i ^wiwafer -a- griavances to the R.DA. within| R.D.A. shall decide ttie from the date of receipt of the| all the points raised by the concluslon that In view of thel entitled for 40% land in ^xch^ acquired, then they can of 40% land preferabty, if land which is acceptabto to the With the direction Consequently, I. A. No.< Parties are entitled for consider avaiUable aforesbid <tii'iiFci41'f 4i*<rtTfftec^<('ai<<;i< ^;3rf^FT3I1^T a period of 10 days from loday and in turn repres|entation of the peUtioners within 3 monttis [same in an objective manner, consida-ing Ipetitionere. !f the R.D.A. reaches to the RDA's policy decision the petltioners are i^inge of the land of the petitioners atready the claim of the petitioners for allotonent >, at Katora Talab Sector-7 w any other betitioners. afores^id, the petition stands disposed of. .6^05/2005 also stends disposed of. c^rtfied copy ofthis order; Sd/- L.C. Bhadoo Judge