^ CF0000166770 HlGti CUURT 01' Cyi-tATTISQArtH AT y^urt^yUH writ Petit-l-on NO. Petltloner Kespondents •'fe Versus 4 yjs Netram Rattiiya Caste Kawar(Adiwashi) Singhanpur, P.O.-Naharpali Teh. Kharsiya, Uistt. Raigarh (C.G.) otate of Chtiattisgarh fchrough Secfetary Land & Revenue Deptt. D.K.s. Bhawan. Ra.i.pur (C.G.^) Collector Raigarh (C.G. ) Sub-Qivis.tona..l Officer Kharsiya, pistt.Raigarh!CG) aisfcrlct Land Acquis-i-tion Officer. Distt.Raigarh(CG) i* "-} HiOH COURT QF CHHATTiSQARHj SiLAS.PUR Division Bench Coram : Hon'bie Shri H.L. Dattu, CJ & Hon'bie Shri V.K. Shrivastava, J a^^?.1' Siie f-^: ^^^'^•'^r~\'-:-. Pctitioner; Respondents Pstitioner: Petjtjonei'; Rssponcients Petjtioner: Respondenfs: Petitioner: ResBpndenjs WftlT PETITION No.2442/2006 Netram Rathiya Versus State of C.G. & Others WRIT PjETiTiQN No, SaiZfZOOS Netram Rafhiya / yersys StateofC.G.&Dthers WRIT PETITiON No. 1716;200e ^ Netram Rathiya- versus State of C.G. & Others WRITPETiTiONNo.3284Q006 Netram Rathiva Versus Stateof C.G. &0thers |WR!B»ETiTiONN0.328&2006 , 1 Mjltager&N SinghanBur Versus:; ! •;• .. '•• StateofC.O.&Others K ^IK Presem: ShrilPisshantiMishra, Addi.AdvocaieGenerai^fortheStete. in -- '^- ORALORDER fsS^^. ^s^ B ®Si'Sl BS-S' (Passed on 13th February, 20075 The foilo-tVing oral order of the Couri was passed by H.L. Dattu, CJ. Sincethe issue jnvolved in aii ihese writ petitions js common, they are clubbed, heard and disposed ofbythis common order. (2) After receiving the letters from various private parties, the learned Chief Justice of this Court had directed the Registry to register those ietters as writ peiitions. (3) After such registration of the cases, the Regisiry had posted the matters before this Court for further orders. This Court haci directed the iearned Additionat Advocate Generai to take notice or t'ne vvrit petitions and ftle their return, if anv. V (4) The respondents have now fileci their detaiied Statement of ofajections and in that, they have aisoenclosed a copy of the order passed by this Court , inW.P.No.279of2006. (5) Now the matter is posted before this Court for atfmission, (6) Leamed Additional Advocate Generat would submit that the issues involved in 1 these writpetitions are identical with the issues raised and considered by this Court in W.P.No.279 of 2006, except a baid istatement made in the writ petition to the effect Miat the industry for whose purpose the lands have been acquired, has encroached upon the Government iand. (7) This Court while disposing of writ petition No.279 of 2006 iia^ observed that the lands have been acquired by the State Government under the provisionsof the Land Acquisition Act and the parties whose iands have been acquired have not questioned the legaijiy or otherwise of the notification '/ ^fe;^a?'. 117 BlsK SE^ gs • 3' issued by the State Government foracquiring the iands, therefore,the Court thought it fit to reiect the writ petition. (8) Except the lands of petitioner- Netram Rathiya, the iands of rest of the petitioners in W.P. No.3285 of 2006, have not been acquired by the State Government. Petitioner Netram Rathiya is a man of means and he can question the correctnsss or otherwise ot the notification issued by the State Government in acquiring his lands for a public purpose, if he so desires. Therefore.-the letters sent by him and registered as writ petitions by this Court, in our view, are unnecessary. Therefore, the writ petitions 'fiied by petitioner - Netram Rathiya are rsjected. However, iiberty is given to him to question the correciness or otheiv/ise of the notification issued bythe State Government in acquiring his lands by fiiing a separate petition before appropriate forum. Insofar as the other petinoners are concerned, their lands have not been '•V • • • acquired bythe State Govemment.In fact, the land-owners whose lands have been acquired by theState Governmeni have not questipned the ^acquisition prpceedings. In oyryiew,at the instance of these petitioners, no ,action need be,taken bythisCpurt. Accordingly.theirwrit petition is rejectect. (9) If tbr any reason,the industry for whose purpose the iands have been ^ Jacquired by the State Government has encroached upon the Goyernment land, it istbr the State Govemmentto take appropriate proceedings against the such industry. In fact,in these writ petitions, the<petitioners have not brought out any specific instancewhere the industry has encroached upon the Government land. In the absence of any material particuiars, it may not be ^ possibie for this Court to take cognizance of the compiaint made by the ?|spetitioners thatthe industry has encroached upon the Govemmentlands. In iglthisview ofthe matter, sven thisissue<"cannot be considereci anddecided by ;A:US.: /•. ^ ! :: ' ; ©• K B ; ^.":^^ SN ^?^ "^il W'S/'rf*^ y EABlSEAI.tqS"aA _"" ~/PS _ •A|giiipJ6ooe pejspjo (l [.) •}Usujuj9Aqa,a}e}g eqi Aq pauinboe ueaq SABL) ^ou pjnous SDUBI siq ieM»MS!A Stfljo si 9t|jf 'iaiiaj 9}eudojdde joi -uinjo^ sisijdojdde SLJ) qoeojdde o^ eAiMiey tuefleN - Jsuoiwed 01 peAjsssj si A}jeqi|'jaAewiOH 'psssiiusip eje suoiinsd iij eqi'eAoqe euip MSIAU| (oi.) •h- f?II •"'^•B^'miS^i^'-t-i^S!^!""