w </A' c' XN THB HIOI GOUXF OF JtT&IGATUI^ OF GHH,ATTISSA% AT BI1ASPUH. Writ Petition Io<±^L-/2002< Sgtntosfa KomsiT ^araa S/o Late Siiri Brij Bausfeari aia.it @ %ukhan Prasad, Aged about 36 ye&rs B/o « fiing Road No,2 Hip&par Mstriet ~ B&ipur (G.CT.) Petitioner, I^i^ (1) Ghi@f Qeoer&I Maaager (Sahattisgarti Stste Indast.Pial Sevelopment Gorpor&tion Ltd, Head Office - B-4 - M.a.Colooy Haipur, Offlc®at - Urls. »!©©r tlrla Theiia ^- ^.» MstriGt -> Baipo]? (©,(:'»). ^^tiK^-/'*^ .- ^^ (2) State ©fGbh&ttisgarte ^..••<"^\^'/^'^ >•' SeGa?etayy - Ministry 04 ^'^[\^^^ --" Xndusta?ial Affair,"' ~^^^^~!0^£ D.K.S. m&ww~~~v ^^--" Mantr-e-laya, &a^' Raipw (C.<5») ,«, Kespondents. ^RZT_^T1T?0!1 TODBR ABTICL8 226 AiD 227 OF INDIAX GONSTITUTIOf, XI-HC-22 3JI^T'^T f^Nr 3Tri?i i^:ii^":HT?f^ •S=S. '^iT^Ti^PT, '^^T're, t^iWy ^/ ,_.u3..-.£.:.ry.o.:...il^s^^y T iCTN?"^v"""""""""""""""" '^^s?' 200- ^K^f^m^RW^ 18.10.2002 Shri Kishore Bhaduri, covB-sel Shii Ranbir Singh, GA fo^ Heard, The case offhe petitionerj ^TRt^WM' 'WT^f ^ f^t TfWZR •^- ^f^fq c^T? for fhe petitioner. the State. is fhat the laad of fhe petitioner was acquired by fhe AutibLorities and corsipensation under the provisions of Laiid Acquisition Act, has al^o beea paid to hiin. It is the ftirther case of fhe petitioner that he ^as given aii oral assurance ftiat ia case of aay bonaflde need he ^iU be atlotted anoftier piece of laad for runnHig his busiaess. A^corcliiigly, the petitioner, niade an appMcation for atlotiiient of lax^d adnieasuruig 7812 sq.ft., aad fhe said appUcation was entertaii|ied but ultiaiately rejected 011 fhe groiind tih.at a prior appMcati4n for aUotinent of laad ia qiiestion was ah-eady pendiag before barbed wire, and fherefore, tt the Aufhorities. The case of fhe petitioner is fhat as he was giv^n aa assuraiice that fhe land would be allotted to hioi by the Aufh^rities, he had fenced the area wifh ^ie Aufhorities were not justified ia rejectbig fhe application for atlo|jnent of land, nioi'e so when he was a greezi card holder. —.2— [Tfr^^fe^ 4 3?r^i^T 'r^TN?5^T ^ti^TTfN •^ ^ X|^? ( ) ^l^T-i^T^R^f^ Haviag heard leanied iaclmed to entertam fhi& ^rit petition. There is no docuiaeiit on record to iadicat^ fhat any such promise was inade to the petitioner for aUotment of a particular piece of •^pqf^f4^T ^IF^T? ^ 'fexst Ti^f^K ^-^man^ counsel, the Court is not land or for fhat raatter, aay absence of aay allotsiient ordejr in. favoiir of fhe petitiouer, fhe petitioner was not justified| aud putting a fenciag it with jbarbed wire. If he iacurred aay expenditure in doiiig so Accordiagly, fhe petitiou faUs ^nd is disinissed. ofher laiid. That apart, ia in taki&g possession of laad he has to fhaiik hixiiself. Sd/- P.C. Naik Judge GRPRJ—FS/311—1/2001—50,000. ^^ ^^ r? ^•^