W.P.($) No. /2011 PETITIONERS V\ X1] \Vg . ‘y m W Samar Vijay Singh, S/o. Ran Vijay Singh, aged about 30 years, R/o. Darripara, Ambikapur, District Surguja (C.G.) Amar Vijay Singh, S/o. Ran Vijay Singh, aged about 28 years, R/o. Darripara, Ambikapur, District Surguja (C.G.) VERSUS State 0f Chhattisgarh, Through: Secretary, Revenue Department, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) Collector, Ambikapur, Surguja, District Surguja (C.G.) Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue), Surajpur/Land Acquisition Officer, District Surguja (C.G.) Tahsildar, Ambikapur, District Surguja (Chhattisgarh) IN THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATI‘IS AT BILASPUR GARH ® WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA x, “5‘\‘§:2 <> RESPONDENTS / , 3] 3W (MP €>xk0.o?l$9/N “Hi 00 . m mmmw WWIYWW $Weméw SB : Hmfbie Semi Manindra Mahan $hriva5tava. J. 25=G4=2M1 8hri Manoj Parampe, counsel mr the petit$oners. DepLty Sa’mE V.V.S.Murthy, State/respondents 0n advance copy. Heard The Iimited grievance ventiiated through this petiiicn by the petitimers is that theJand belonging to one Si‘k'eshara Devi and Amar Vijay $ingh has been acquired under the iand acquisition proceedings bui the amount of compensation has not been ieieased. Advocate Generat for the The Detitionei‘ No.1 claims to be ihe successor of Sikeshare Devi, who is istaieci io have ciied in the vear 1998i Learned counsei for the petitoners submits that both the petitioners are entitieo? to reiease of the amount of compensation in iieu of acquisition of the iand, which beiongaito the decea eci —— Eikeshara Devi and petitioner No.2 respectiveiy, He further submite tha number of representations have been made to respondents 2 and '3 by the etitionersx but neither the oompensation amount has been reieaseci nor an order has been passed on betitioners‘ renreeentation. On the other hand, iearned Deputy Advocate Generai submits thai even though acquisition has taken ace long back in the year 1998 and the award has been passed, the pettioners Started ciaiming compensation submitting the representations and giving iegai notice after more than ten years. He further submits that th petitioner Not has not stated that he submitted before the authorities, the uccession certificate obtained by him, Taking into consideration the grievance raised by the petitioners and submissions made by learned coun el for the parties, in the opinion ot this Court, interest of justice wouici be s rved, if direction is issued to respondent ‘ l 5:3 1* WW,W.W . .................... .............................................. my ......... .......W 200 W ( w oma/n WW13T—gém awfmm >f the wetitinriers‘ with regard to their 3ati0n ann take apprepria‘re ciecision No.2 ta consider me representation c respective ciaim for grant of camper thereuporr The- petition i3 accordingly fin re$p0ndent No.2 to decide petitioner payment 'of campensation exgeditior petitioners and 5ubmitting required info by respondent No.2 for the purposee oi aiiy disposed off with a direction to s‘ i'epresen‘raiion and their ciaim for rely, subject to cooperation by ihe rma‘rion and documents, as demanded verification of the ciaim. w Sd/- Manindra Mohan Shrivastava Judge hm ‘éimf’r