‘«B R. EFORE CHHATTI SG$RH HIGH COURT, BIIA SPU Writ Peti ti on 6 /2001 em‘l‘lcm wage ARTicLs 227 OF Tm; CONSTITUTmN Foe GRmT rm ArkROkhlAThL W‘dlT. Smt Padma Jain w/o shri Nirmal Chard Jain, resident of mmRoad, Near Nagpur Naka, ‘aJnandgaon, Tah511 and D1 ctrlct 1&Jnandgaon (cmatti sgarh) EsLTLTI Om ER VE§§U$ Gram Panchayat, Bhawarmara,Through Sarpanch Block Tehsil and District Rajmndgaon \Lhnattl sgarh) RESPONDEEI State of Chhatlsgarh Through Secretary, Ivlnlno Department D.K Secretariat, Ralpur, (Chhat1 sgarh) Janpad Panchayat, Rajnandgaon through its Chief Executive Officer, Rajnandgaon. PARTICULARS OF THE PETITIONER : W As mentioned in the cause title above. tArU‘lL aka Uh Trih. HbSPOhumTb As mentioned in the cause tltle abwe. PARTKCULAHS OF This ORDER AGAINe‘T wHicH THE EmTI'ECm BnING Mam?) z The instant petition is directed against the order passed on dt. 29. 12. 2000 by Addl. Commissioner, Raipur Division, Raipur in revenue case No. [QB-121 year 2000—2001 Smt. Padma Jain V/s. State and another, if gknnex, E31) vaca’cing the stay order (Annx;P2) dated 23.11.2000, with immediate effect. 501 SUBJECT Mé‘tTTER E BRIEEK‘ : That, on petitioner' applicaticn dated25.12.96 (Annx—P-B), Respondent No.1 ‘J’ide (Annx-Ph) granted lease a.2.. Res‘romm Ts “ ym ...”ge m . \ 3a-m, 'Chha‘ttis gayh, B ilas pur / mm w.P. No'. 6/2001 Heard Mr. P.K.C. Tiwari, legrned counsel for the petitioner and §hri N.K. shukla, learned Dy.A.G. fer respondents/State . y After hearing learned counsel for the partfés at some 1:erigth, I am of tpe opinion'that.the matter should be decided finally by the Additional commissioner; Raipu‘ri withoue fprtl'aer / delay. Though theni'atter has: been pending since 8/1/2001, no progress has been made till nan. ‘ on pemsalbf the relevant documents placed on record,’ it appears to be that ultimately the matter should be settled. by the Additional Commissioner, ', LL Raipur, before whom the pet‘al tibner 'had‘ already approached by filing the petitio‘nr 1 This petition has been filed before wt$ ’ this Court impugni‘ng order dated 29‘112/2009 .vfhe urder of . ‘/ ' stay @Ea? datea 23/11/2000passedvby {the Additionai'commissionen Raipur, came to be vacated. In‘ order to avoid any further delay and confusion in the atter, I direct the Additional Commissioner, Raipur, to he r the parties} and pass final ; orders on 12/2/2001. I sha 1' make it clear that if the petitionegsuCCeeds in appe 1, itis‘fo'r' the Additional Commissioner to take into c nsideration the period during which the pet tioner claims to have suffered becanse of : ma éfaa .............................................. m 199: m an mw fsérW » amm vii?! m amt . ¥ % Warm mW 5/ 2/ 2 001 ‘ WW’ ‘Chhattisgarh, B ilas pur ..2. litigation in the gourt and vacation before the commissi also because of the ogder of be fore the Additional commis oner. Parties shall’appear above . Learned counsel for the stage 13: will be .fair for th order issued on 29/12/2000 s means xxx that the impugned with effect from «29/12/2000 ' of. “in view of the fact tha Raipur shall take into consi ‘ the ‘imptg ned order came into necessary to keep the impugn Wi th these observations "uLv sioner on 12/2/2001 as stated y ‘é r . petitioner submits that at this is court to say thatthe impugned hould be kept in abeyance.’ It order would be, of no consequehce til-l the matter is finally disposed t the» Additional win Commissioner, aeration the ‘period during. which operation, I do not think it ed order in abeyence. , this petition is disposed of. O , Sd/- 11 ‘~ €hief Justice [slew