x’\, M‘ jiiuii COURT ()E CiiiiA’i‘TISGARH AT BILASPUR Writ Petition (C) No. 1693 0f2008 .Danéi Ram Dewangan Sfo iate Shri Megfmath Dewangan, aged about 65 years R/o Lokmanya Tiiak Ward No. 37, Dhammpura No. 2 Jagdaipur, District Bastar CG. ‘VERSLb 1. Siate of Chhatijsgarh éhrough the Secretary, Eepartment of Revenue, Ministry DKS Buiiding Raipur (CG). 2. Th? Coiiector, Jagiaipur, Dish‘ict Bastzu‘ (CG). 3. The Conunissioner, Nagm'paiik Nigam Jagdaipur Dism'ct Bastar, C(J 4. The Tehsiidar, jagdaipur. District Bastar (CG). (WRIT PE'HTIQN UNDER ARTICLE 226 GF THE CONSTITUTEON OF INDIA) (SB: Hon‘me Mr. Satjsh K. Agnihotri, J.) With GRAL $RDER d ea 13th {my e§ Febrima'y, 2%9) the consent ofthe parties, the matter is taken up for hearing tinaiiy. i. The petitioner, by this peiition, seeks foiiowirig reliefs: "in. View Ofthe facts and circumstances me petitioner prays that: 1. Thai, this Horfble Court may kindly be pieaseé to can for eatire recemis reievam t0 abuve petition for kind perusal 0f this i’icm’bie Court. Thai, this Hon'bie High Court may kindly restricts the respm‘iderits that they Siouid nQt dispossess the petiiiC-i er iz‘om the aforesaid land wiih power and force for beneiiting airy thii‘d perseii siiiee he is i‘eady t0 pay the premium aiiioum for aiiotment 0f said iand on 'Patta as iixed by the Geverrimen‘i. . 'i’iiat. ifGovemment had decideé to aiiot the said iand to any private party thzm {he petitioner should be given preference against any third pany, since he is in possession over the said PETETIGNER i RES?ONDENTS Present : $hri Alek Dewangan, Advocate ibr the peii’iioner. Shri Anind Bubey, Panel Lawyer for the State. S‘nri AS. Kachhwaha, Advocate for the respondent No. 3. e gRing iand since last aivout 24 years. it is pettinent to mentiori here that ths petitéaiier is mady t9 pay yrsmium amwiits as fixed by this 4. That, this Hon'ble Couit may kindly be pieased to direct the iiiegat respondents demolition to nay oi‘his aéeqoate house compensation and violation to ofiimdamentai the petitioner and for undue rcspon&ems sufi-éring to ofthe rovz'de peiitioner cost of the and petition further and direct compensate to make the an inquixy fm‘ a}! the hreguhn'ties comiiiitted I this process by writ, That, directions, this Han‘ble reiiefor Court ower may kindly which b$ the piwssd petitioner m pass is entitled aiiy othar and Govermnen’n. human right ofthe petkmner. Issumg writ ofMandamus. QNV favour ofihe petitioner. " the Herz‘hie Cour: may deed f3: may Modly be passed in the 2. This is admitted case ofthe petitioner that occupation ot‘the petitioner on the have aheady been demolished by the respondent authorities on account offact that there was aHegeo encroachment on the land. iand was not iegai and authorized. Some paits ofthe house ofthe petitioner . Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner thither subinits that the i'espondent authorities have aheady aiiotted the same iand to some other person. The petitioner seeks as direction that the aliotment ofthe iand be made to him in preference. This cannot be done at this stage by this Court. They present petition invoives we question of disputed facts which have to be f decided by ajurisdiotionai competent court. 4. In View ofthe above. this petition is not maintaina’ole anti is accordingiy dismissed. However, liberty is reserved to the petitioner. on his request, to approach a competent juristiictional' court, it'so advised. No order asto costs. Sdl- Satish K. Agnih’otr Judge p N i ' V