m HON?BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILABPUR (C.G.) ^ /"^17^ ^'T 'htm^'^ 1:S©S'^"" IContempt Case (C| No......3.^....../2011| PETITIONER ^^r::'^.'^^' Jhadilal S/o Badal Yadav Aged about 84 year R/o Fuljhariya psara Tahsil - J^.^- Sarangarh District - Raigarh p'93''"180^:^-- Qa^--^'^ o RESPONDENTS CONTEMNORS ^^^t> (C.G.) VERSUS 1. 2. ASHOK AGRAWAL, Collector Raigarh Cum. Land acquisition officer Raigarh; District - Raigarh (C.G.) Sub- Divisional Officer (P.W.D.) Sarangarh; P. W. D. Office Sarangarh, Distt.- Raigarh (C.G.) CONTBNPT CASE IC| UNDER ARTICLE 215 OF CONSTITUTION OF IHDIA READ WITH SECTION OF THE CONTEMPTOF_COURTS ACT. 3^T^T f^W^TT^I ^FRWHf^T ~^sf ^WM^, ^•a1-H4«o, [^<ni^^< 3:n^r 'q^? ^^:ce±£^.^/^} WR^?TWRI^ •^' 200 '1^^8?' 3?T^T'^<r}^R'HftPT SB : Hon'ble Shri Manindra Moti 31-01-2011 Shri V. K. Pandey, counset Heard. <^l^f<ri41<l 'HPT^f ^ 'fe^ <r^^l< ir ^Tf^R 37T^i lan Shrivastava. J. for the petitioner Learned counsef for the i^titioner submits that in view of certain statement made by the learned Sljate counsel, the petition (Writ Petition (C) No. 5102 of 2009) was finally jdisposed of recording that the State authorities would decide the com|3ensatjon by calculating the same at the market rate and pay the said comjpensation to the petitioner at the earliest. in accordance with the provision^ the Act, 1894) and pass appropri^te order within a period of8 weeks from today. The petitioner was granted] as prescribed under the pro\| enhancement of compensation. Learned counsel for the p^titioner six months have lapsed, the nlatter counsel submits that though in pending without passing any final From the order passed by| (C) No.5102 of 2009,1 transpirej learned State counsel, this petiti| specific direction by this Court to time, 1 am not inclined to issue nol of Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (For short liberty to approach the appropriate for-ym isions of the Aot, 1894 for further further submits that even though, has not attained finality. Learned c|ifferent offioes, the matter has remained jorder. this Court on 18-06-2010 in Writ Petition 5 that on oertain statement made by the 3n was finally disposed off. There is no ^omplete the exercise within a reasonabte ice to the respondents at this stage. [-q^-?fe^ ^iil -yn^T^T R^i.4) ^n^r st)^ich ^f^a ^^ '^CTIW "Hft^ — T Y. Tumane ^Sf ^||qi<nq, ^nl^^Ko, fa<rT<^^< .3ff^r x?^^ ^J^^F<Lfc)^^^/ ••^/ 200 WWi?fT^W^ "^^y' The respondents however ar^ in the matter in view of the stateme^ before this Court. In case, the res^ appropriate orders within a pericj< petitioner would be at liberty to reviv^ With the aforesaid observatiol ^HZjf^^^ ^H^if'^ f^^) <f^^^ IfT srf^R 3T[^[ obiiged under the law to take decision nts made by the tearned State counsel pondent authorities 4|»failwr to pass d of three months from today, the 3 the petition. i, the petition is finally disgosgd-o^- "—•M£.sl"°~" r.