C‘P‘W’ _ {Bi-E HIGH CGURT OF JUDICATURE AT BILAS'HIR .G.) IN wRIT PETmIou no. ¢9OO or 2003 BEw EEEN anjan Singh e about 47 ears S/o Late Qari Biau @ Trilcchm singh resident of Parani Basti KDra Teil and trict mrba (CG). Bir Singh S/o late shri Bishau @ Trilochan Spgh aged abaut 45 years, resident of mrani Basta. Korm. Tehsil and istrict Korba cs)- m §ngh aged about 35 yers 3/0 late Shri Bishau D ( r é kilohan Singh residnt of Parani Basti mrba. mehsil an Dstrict Kata (CG). mi ut g ia Narayan Singhaged abo 32 years s/o Late aqri Bishan @ Trilochan Sinh, resident of Purani m Tei sa Karba. hsl and District Koxba (CG). N oD‘ f i hr eo The state o aahat'ésgarh, Tough collctr Korba. Ts a t - ehil nd Distric mrba (6G) ‘rhe Lnd Asitio Oficer/ rasicrbe urit b vsional o5ficer (a), mrba ehsi; and District mra (CG).‘ s; The Commisioner Q ®TehsilAand Ha Palik District Niga wrb Ibrba (CG). @m ? , gar m,” a,’ x‘ " r f RES nm'rs (g1 ward; miifzw mom-Almxcms 2‘25/ 27‘ Loy- mE cogs‘ixmw OF 1m 1. Particul ars of the Peti tioners As stated in the cause title above. W Pllr agd y sh , bf hs mis @ c ,‘ e d i h a cquin f Eid Athoy su Dii , T b i-IBGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT EIL§SPUR WRIT PET§T§ON N0. 1900 OF 2&03 Petitioners Puranjan Singh & Others Versus Resnondents The State of Chhattisgarh & Others WRIT PETlTlON UNDER ARTICLE 226i227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDTA {SB : Hon’ble Mr. Satish K. Agnihotri, JJ Present :- Smt. Renu Kochar, Advocate for ihe petitioners. Shri A.V.Shridhar, Panel Lawyer for the State! respondents No.1 & 2‘ Shri Sanjay K. Agrawat, Advocate for-the respondent No.3. ORDER (ORAL) (Passed on 6‘“ day of Octeber, 2G10) B 1. y this petition, the petitioners, seeks a direction t0 the respondent No.3 to reiease the compensation of the land acquired by the respondent No.3 with interest @ 18%, aiternativeiy the land enquired by the respondent No.3 be returned back. 2. The case of the petitioners is that the petitioners are the joint owner of land admeasuring 0.49 acres situated near the water tank, Korba, Khasra No.572/2, Patwari Haika No.4, -R.l.Circie, Korba, District Korba. The land was acquired way back in the year 1980 and no compensation has been given to the petitioners. in response, Shri Agrawai, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.3; relying on the averments made in the return, submits that the respondent No.3 has acquired the iand to the extent of area 0.29 hectare of Khasra No.572/2 situated near water tank, Korba and for that purpose; the father of the petitioners, who was head of the famiiy, was granted compensation on 3.7.198G, as is ‘ evident from Annexure R-3/A. a \. x \ [3\ é; On canteniion of the iearned counse! for the petitioner that the total iand was 0.49 hectare and the compensation granted only for 0.29 hectare, Shri Agrawal, iearned counsei brought to the notice of this Court, a ietter written by the father of the petitioners i.e. Annexure R- 3/C, whereby, it was clearly stated by him that in Khasra No.572i2, area 0.2g hectare land was there and for which he was entitled for compeneetion and the same was granted and paid, thereafter. 5. Shri Shridhar, learned counsel appearing for the State/respondents No. 1 & 2 concurs with the submission made by Shri Agrawal. 6. ln respect of second contention of the petitioners that the petitioners being sons of late Bisahu, had not been paid compensation. Thus, this petition was filed after death of their‘father late Bisahu, it was submitted by the learned counsel for the respondents that once the compensation has been paid to the father of the petitioners, the petitioners being sons, cannot claim further compensation for the same land, which has already been acquired, assessed and compensation thereof had been paid.‘ So, the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners that since the petitioners are not being paid any compensation, therefore, they have fiied this petition is without any basis and frivolous and is accordingly rejected. Having perused the documents appended to the petition, l found that the grievance of the petitioners is without any basis, as compensation has already been paid. However, liberty is reserved to the petitioners, if there is any other grievance, to take recourse to the competent civil court, if so advised, in accordance with law. 8. in view of the foregoing, the writ petition is dismissed. No order asto costs. i v . Sd/- , ,_ . _ i Satish K.Agnihotri is 3 7. a f" ’ ’ L“ “( : s , Judge