W-'^.A^''1"' ", ^ .J , ^4. '.*J^»^^'' ^ ^c-'<^v- ^tft^v^.^,Q- d<>tsd"""-' ZN TBE HIQH COURT 0£- WSI.efff&BB AT BIIASPyfe (G.©,) WEiyPBTiTION N®»22-) 2004 '' l* Ishwari Prasad RattooE®S/o Kateafl Sijngb Rafehere, aged aboat. 6Q ,/years* Resldent of Tbakur Blya, Kharsia. TehsAl Kttaes.i.a Distriet / Raigarh (CS). 2» Bajraag Agtawal s/o iJagannafcb Prasad Agrawal aged ?Mft»air!(. about 54 years. Resident of Kbarsia. TehsiJL Kbarsj.a Bistrict Raigarb • PETITIONBRS l* 2. A N B The State 6£ Ghhatfej.sgarla, tbroagb the seeretary BepartineBt of Xrrigati.on, HantEalay, D.K.S.Bulldlng Kaipur (CG), The Exeeutive Bfig.i.nesr, Mini MataBango Canal Kharsia Distriat KaAg^rto {GG). 3.^ Collector Raigarh * 4. Land ACqttisltion OjEficee/Sub Si.visional Offi.cer, ^^ Kbacsi.a, Biatyict Raigarh* ( 5» Hastalsha I>al S/o paharu EMta. S.D.O* (lErigafeioa} i ^- Kharsia, BAstriet Ra.i.ga.ch » 6. Niranjan S/o Kutidan I.al .eesldenfe of Kharsia Bj.striet aaigarh • . . . _ , ?„ Prasad and-CCTiipany,througI» its proprle ter.at present working as eontractor at Mini Mata RESPONDENTS Canal Project Kbarsia. jwr-ifcdjay WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTIGLES 226/227-' OS'_TS_COK®TOTU'EI@N OF IKDIA -i^U-1 al^a—0^-^feLfeKa, Offi*-^ 4-^/-^»>^y» •______ _ _ __ _ _ ffl w ...Niui HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPLrR WRTT PETmON No. 221 of2004 PETmONERS RESPONDENTS Ishwari Prasad Rathore & Anothei', VERSUS The State ofChhattisgarh & Others. ^ %'RIT PEnTION L'NDER ARTICLE 226/227 OF THE CONSTITUnON OF INDIA SB: Hon'ble Shri Sateh K. As'mhotn.J, Ajmt Present: Shri Awadh Tripathi, ADvocate for the petitioners. Shri V.V.S.Moorthy, Deput).- Advocate General for State/ respondent No. 1 to 4. it£ (Passed on 24m day ofAugust, 2011) 1. Leamed counsel appearing fbr the petitioners, on instructions, submits that tfae award has already been passed, though compensation has not been paid to the petitioners. 2. S.fari Moorthy. leamed Deputv Advocate General appearing for fhe ^tate/respondent No. 1 to 4 submits that tfae compensation, as dete.nniaed, is Ivuig with the respondent No. 4 which may be collected by the petitioners. 3. In view ofthe above, according to leamed counsel appearing fbr ibe petitioners, nothing survives for adjudication in tius petition. 4. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed as having become infhictuous. ~~—-- satlsh K. Agnihotrf