w /A w @ C) Singia gwch IN THE HON‘BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR. VERSUS RESPONDENTS: Wn‘t Petition [C] No‘ "2 [23 12014) 1. 01. 03f 04. Amar Singh S/o Late Dawan Singh, Caste— Kanwar (Scheduled Tribe), aged about 78 yrs. Manharan Singh S/o Shri Lat Singh, Caste’ Kanwar (Scheduled Tribe), aged about 32 yrs. Amrit Lal S/o Late Dukhu Singh, Caste- Kanwar (Scheduled Tribe), aged about 55 yrs. All R/o Viilage: Bhaisma, Tahsii & District: Korba, Chhattisgarh. State of Chhattisgarh through their Chief Secretary, Mantralaya, DKS Bhawan, Raipur, Chhattisgarh. Union of lndia Through: Their Secretary, Ministry of Power, Shram Shakti Bhawan, Ministry of Power, New Delhi- 100 001. Power Grid“ Corporation of india Limited, through: their Managing Director, B—9, Qutab Institutional Area, Kant/aria Sarai, New Delhi~ 100 016. Deputy General Manager, Power Grid Corporation of lndia Limited, 9/675, Bharat'iya Nagar, Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh.‘ / District Collector, Korba, District: Korba, Chhattisgarh. Land Acquisition Officer/ Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue), Tahsil Office Korba, District: Korba, Chhattisgarh. WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA m M.“ w NW o2. " WW mmmw mm ®aW émIWm Shrivastava J. SB : Hon’ble Shri Manindra Mohan 25-04-2011 Shri Rajkama! Singh, counsel for the petitioners. Shri Arun Sao, Government Advocate for the State/respondents 1, 5 and 6 on advance copy. Shri Kashif Shakeei, counsel for respondent No2 on advance copy. This petition has been preferred by the petitioners, aggrieved by the land acquigition proceedings drawn Officer in the matter of acquisition 82/2009—2010 whereunder, the notifcation under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act has been issued, intending to acquire certain lands which includes the land of the petitioners al: The petitioners have approac Acquisition proceedings, submitting t of their property, except in accordan the Land Acquisition Act. Learned after issuance of notification under E notices were issued in Form B (Ann being completion of acquisitionproct Grid Corporation has been shown, t petitioners are stili in possession r (Annexure PM), detailed objections further submits that mandatory prov Act require the respondents to draw 5-A, 6, 7, 8 and thereafter, a notice; be issued. He further submits that by the respondent — Land Acquisition under Land/Acquisition Case No.7/A- .o. hed this Court aggrieved by the Land hat the petitioners could not be deprived :e with the procedure estabiished under counsel for the petitioners submits that ‘section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, exure P/1), wherein, even without there eedings, the name of respondent—Power o be in possession. He submits that the )f the property and pursuant to notice were submitted by the petitioners. He sions contained in the Land Acquisition oroceedings contempiated under Section s required under Section 9 is required to under the statutory scheme of the Act, WW Efm EW,W.W am m . ...to:.l3.:..§¢).m~..ame/ " 1H 200 &mwur mm.whw.m FJeepli unless the award is passed in the manner prescribed under the iaw, the respondents have no authority to take ossession. The petitioners appear to be ggrieved against the entries made in various columns of notice — Form B nnexure P/1), in which while issuing notice to the petitioners to submit hi objection: in column 9, it has been stated that Power Grid Corporation is in possession. The petitioners being the owner of the land in question, ould not be dispossessed except in accordance with the prbvisions conta ed in the Land Acquisition Act. The scheme of the Act is very clear and o possession could be taken without passing an award, in cases, where em rgency clause is not invoked. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits th tthe petitioners are still in possession but the manner in which the entries i the notice—Form B (Annexure Pii) is made, the petitioners are apprehendi g that they may be dispossessed from their property, It is made ciear that the respon ent —- Land Acquisition Officer shall act strictly in accordance with the provisi ns contained in the Land Acquisition Act. ln case, the petitioners have any rievance with regard to the decision, if any taken or any award which is ulti ately passed, the petitioners wouid be at liberty to take recourse to remedy, may be available to them under the iaw. With the aforesaid observation ,the petition is finally disposed off. Sd/- Manindra Mohan Shrivastava Judge [Haw s f € maQRB/H mm W1 200 W mm mm m$a mmmm ”Q— WWW‘ WIEW %awfaqaa1éa