IN THE HON’BLE’ HIGH COWT OF GMATTIS AT HILASPUR W.P. {c i ND. 6'0 0 [2009 Shambhu Charan S/o Shn' Hiralal Aged about - 60Years Occupation- Agriculturist R/o Village - Dongamoha P.S.— Tamnar, Tahsil — Tamnar District -Raigarh ( CG.) PETITIOMR VERSUS RESPOMENTS :1. State ofChhattisgarh, Through Secretary, Departmen of mines and minerals , D.K.S. Bhawcm District- Raipur (C.G.) X2. Collector, Raigarh Dist— Raigarh ( CG.) z 3. Sub Divisional O$cer Sub Division Gharghoda , DiSi— Raigarh (C.G.) / 4. Station ouse Officer Police station ~Tamnar , Dist~ Raigarh ( CG.) ‘ " / t H ,u /5. Jindal Steel and Captive Power plant . Tamnar, Through its Executive Director Kharsia Road Raigarh ( CG.) WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226g 22? OF THE CONSTFI‘UTION OF INDIA ’Same L’ W i'iiGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BiLASPiJR WRIT PETITEON 13) NO. 71342 of 2908 Petificn‘er v Shambhu Charan Versus Resgcnéants State of Chhattisgarh & Others WRIT PETlTlON {Ci N0. 6090 of 2009 Peti‘iioner ‘ Shambhu Charan Versus Resgandents State or ‘Chhattisgam & Others _ 7 . WRIT PET!T!ON UNDER ARTICLE 226/227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF {NDIA (SB : Hon’bie Mr. Satish K. Agnihotri, J.) Present :- Ms. Dipaii. Pandey, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri P.K.Bhaduri, Panel Lavrger’forthe State] respondents No.1 to 4. r Shri B.D.Guru wiih Shri Shashank Thakur, Advocates for the respandent No.5. GR§ER {ORAL} (Passed on 20“ day or October, 2010) 1‘ The case of the petitioner is ihat the respondent No5 is - undertaking. mining operation in the land bearing khasra No.104/4ka, khasra No.104/4kha; khasra No.104f5ka, khasra No.104/6ka, khaera No.105/6, situated at viliage Dongamoha, Tahsii Tamnar, District Raigarh, under the ownership of the petitioner, which have not been soid by the petitioner to the respondent No.5 unauthorisedly or iiiegaity. 2. ‘ A report was caiied by'theT'Mining inspector, who submitted a report stating the fact that there is no iilegai mining in the land . belonging tothe petitioner Ki {\‘1 t ‘ Be that as it may, it is not possible for this Court to identify the ownerShip of the land on the basis of affidavits and the report and further whether minihg operation is‘going on in fhe iand held by the petitioner or in the land sold by the petitioner to respondent No.5, or any other land. Thus, it would be jusi and proper that the Coilector Raigarh may be directed to look into the grievance of the petitioner and ensure that no mmmo operation takes place in the land held by the petitioner in any case, by the respondent No.5 or any other agency without following due process ot law. it is further directed that the Collector shall examine the dispute after affording proper. opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and other concerned parties. The needful may be done as early as possible preferably within a period of four weeks. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of. No order asto costs. ' Sd/- ’ '7 a“; r/g w, r, ,_. ,W SATISH K AGNiHom ‘ Judge it ‘ f § 7 _ ,TLJ 7—\