HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH. BILASPUR WRIT PETITION (Cl No.2626 of 2009 PETITIONER RESPONDENTS Bharat Lal Chouhan, S/o Shri Mohan Lal Chouhan, aged about 41 years, R/o village 85 Post Lakholi, Tahsil Arang, Distt. Raipur (C.G). Vs. 1. State of Chhattisgarh, through Secretary, Revenue Department, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur, Distt. Raipur /(C.G). 2. Land Acquisition Officer, Raipur, Distt. Raipur (C.G). 3. Sub-Divisional Officer, Raipur, Distt. Raipur (C.G). 4 Chhunilal Chouhan, s/o Dayabhai Chouhan, aged about 55 years, r/o village & post Lakholi, Tahsil Arang, Distt. Raipur (C.G). WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA Appearance: Mr C. R. Sahu, counsel for the petitioner. Mr. Amrito Das, Panel Lawyer, for the State/respondents 1 to 3. ' Mr. H.B. Agrawal, Sr. Advocate with Mrs. Itu Rani Mukherjee, counsel for respondent no.4. ORAL ORDER (07.01.2010) SUNIL KUMAR SINHA. J, Heard finally with the consent of the parties. Mr. Sahu, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the land of the petitioner was acquired in a regular land acquisitipn proceedings and the compensation has been assessed by the Sub-Divisional Officer/Land Acquisition Officer, Raipur \ vide Annexure P-1. He submits that before disbursement of W.PfC). No.2626/2009 amount of compensation, an objection was raised by respondent no.4 and the matter has been put into enquiiy. He further submits that the concerned authorities be directed to pay the amount of compensation already assessed to the petitioner. On the other hand, Mr. Amrito Das, learned Panel Lawyer and Mr. H,B. Agrawal, Sr. Advocate appearing on behalf of the respective respondents submit that the question of entitlement/ apportionment has been raised by respondent no.4 which is pending for adjudication before the Land Acquisition Officer, who has referred the matter to Tahsildar, Arang, which is pending before the Tahsildar concerned. They further submit that as per the contents ofAnnexure P-2, the matter was listed on 04.05.2009 for recording evidence but no final decision has been taken so far. They also submit that without deciding the said case finally, no orders for payment of compensation to the petitioner can be passed. I have heard learned counsel for the parties at length and have also perused the records of the writ petition. After going through the entire records of the writ petition, particularly the order sheets filed vide Annexure P-2, I am of the opinion that this petition may be disposed of with a direction to the concerned authority to decide the Revenue Case No.l443B/ 121/2008-209 at the earliest which is pending for adjudication of facts in issue raised by the parties. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of with a direction that the Tahsildar, Arang and Land Acquisition Officer, Raipur (Sub-Divisional Officer, Raipur) shall tiy to dispose of the above pending case in accordance with law as early as possible Rao W.PCC). No.2626/2009 preferably within a period of 4 months from the date of production of the certified copy of this order. With the above direction/obser^atiojis, this petition stands finally disposed of. Sd/- Sunil Kumar Sinha Judge 1