(5/ l HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGRH A AT BILASPUR Diwslon Bench . Hon’ble Shri Dhu'endra Mishra. W WritAppeaI N6 60o 2011 1‘ Kumér Ban Goswami Slo Late Kailash Ban goswaml aged 58 year Vljay al Ban Goswaml S/o Late Kana h Ban Goswaml aged 48years 1 Rxshr‘ Ban Goswaml SID Late Kauash Ban ‘boswaml aged 46 years Rajendra Ban Goswam! sic Late Kauash Ban Goswamu aged 44 years Rupendra Ban Goswaml S/o Shn Rlsht Ban Goswaml aged 22 years AI! Rio Ghorapata Tahsn Katghora Drstnct Korba CG) -Versus- 5 ‘ . State of Chhattlsgam Through The 1 - Secretary, Revenuehndustnes Department DKS Bhawan Mantralaya Ralpur(CG) The Collector Korba and Posted under Secretary Chhattlsgarh Government Revenue Department Dlstrlct Korba (CG) The Sub DIVtswnal Officer (Revenue) Katghora DIstrIctKorba CG) - The Land Acqursmon Officer Katghora, Tahs‘il Katghora District Korba (CG) The General Manager NTPC Lmted Korba DrstnctKorba (CG) ‘ v ... ... .- n t ‘ ppetlants A 2. 3. 4 5 . resent , ‘ Mr RS Patel counsel forthe appellants l Mr Sumesh Bajaj. Govt Advocate for the State ORAL JUDGMENT (2S March 2011). ‘Per Dhlrendra Mtshra, J , g The petitioners writ petttlon challenging the Nottt'catlon of Annexu P/1 Issued under Section 4 of the Land Acqutsmon Act 1894 on the groun hat the land In dispute ts a good agricultural land havmg high fertility ha been disposed of Vtde order dated 13‘” July, 2010 (Annexure N2) wtthj direction to the State/respondent to consxder and deCtde the objection ‘ 0 ratsed by the petttloners on 7 11 2009 (Annexure PI2) and 172201 (Annexure P/5) In accordance With law and on Its own merits before proceeding In the land acqutsmon proceedings The petitioners reVIew petition against the aforesaid order of Annexure A/2 has been again dismissed by the impugned order. 2: By the instant Writ appeal, the appellants hve payed or quasing of h bve two ordr te ao es. 0 Respondents P r d t s a s a r f h Shrl RS Pate! Iearned caunsel for the appellants vehemently argues hat It is we" settled law that the good gncutturat land should not be 3. t acqulred for the purposes of establishm nt of any Industry The land belonging to the appellants which was pr$oposed to be acquired ls high quality available fertlle for agrrcultural establrshment land of whereas the ash the Liam barren to government the respondents land Is also The appellants not been declded had submitted tlll date thelr Though objectlons a sjatement r wntmg, however was made the by same learned has counsel for the State that the State shall not proceed wrth the acqulsltron proceedrngs before decrdrng the objectrons of the petltroners however the respondents are proceedmg wrth the acqtnsrtron proceedlngs and notrces under section 9 of the Land Revenue Code have been Issued by the Land Acqursrtlon Officer on 3'” January, 2010 4* Heard learned counsel for the appellant and perused the lmpugned orders 5E. lndrsputably. the wnt petrtron has been drsposed of wrth a categorical dlrectron to the State/respondent to consrder and decrde the objections of the petltroners before proceeding In the land acqursrtron proceedrngs Whrle _ * drsmrssmg the revrew petrtron the learned Slngle Judge has further observed " that m the order sought to be revrewed It has been observed that If the objections raised by the petitioners have not been conSIdered the same shall f be done at the earllest before proceedmg further In the land acqulsmon proceedings and If there Is a Vlolatron of the order the petltroners have other lapproprlate forum for ventilating their grievances 6 Thus In View of the speclfc directions Issued by the learned Smgle Judge on the petition of the appetlants herein we are of the opinion that " grlevanoe of the appellants raised In the writ petition stands duly redressed ‘ by the Impugned order (Annexure N2) and their revrew petition has rightly been relected by the learned Single Judge We fnd no substance In this appeal the same deserves to be and Is accordrngly, dlsmrssed Sd/- , Dhirendra Mishra y '7 I Judge l I‘ r