€a£i673 / IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARHA BILASPUR Writ Petition (C) No. gg% of2010 Petitioners : L/ M/s. Sanjay Agrawal through Proprietor Petitioner # 2 2. Sanjay Agrawal, Age — 5o, S/o Ramautaar Agrawal, 9, South Avenue, Chaube Colony, Raipur Versus RESPONDENTS: LKNaya Raipur Development Authority, Thro’, its Chairman, Office at: Near Mantralaya, Mahanadi / Gate, Raipur (CG) 2. Collector (Revenue) Raipur WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA / w Vzmw A HIGH COURT OF CHHATI'ISGARH : BILASPUR WRIT PETITION (C) NO.‘5889 OF 2010 (Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India) Single Bench: Hon’bie Shri Satish K. Agnihotri, J. Present :- Shri Raja SharmaVAdvocate for the petitioners. Shri M.P.S. Bhatia, Deputy Government Advocate with Shri A.V.Sridhar, Panel Lawyer for the State. ORDER (ORALL (Passed on this 27‘ day of October, 201 O) 1) Heard learned'counsel for the parties. 2) Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the petitioner is the owner of the land bearing Khasra Nos. 1254/2 (part) & 1253/3 (part), village-Mandir Hasaud, Patwari Halka No.73/14, Revenue Circle-Mandir Hasaud, Tahsil-Arang, District-Raipur. There was a consent for acquisition of the land on payment of compensation thereof on the basis of the fact that the said land was irrigated land. Thereafter, the compensation was determined on the basis of being non-irrigated land. 3) Leaned counsel appearing for the State, submits that there is a dispute with regard to nature of the land, as according to the respondents, it is a non-irrigated land and according to the petitioners, it is an irrigated land. However, the respondent authorities are going to determine and give compensation to the petitioners as early as possible, having regard to the nature of the land. Learned counsel further submits that it shall be considered and decided at the earliest within a period of four weeks. 4) Be that as it may, if a representation is made by the petitioners to the authorities/ Collector, Raipur, questioning the nature of thegland, the same shall be considered and decided, in accordance with law and on its own merits, before determining the compensation. 5) In view of the foregoing, according to learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, nothing survives for adjudication, at this stage. 6) Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of. Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge Am it PETITIONERS M/s Sanjay Agrawal & Another Versus RESPONDENTS Naya Raipur Development Authority & Another