(29 / Smgig ‘33mm U \[/ m- mE Hie}: COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BILASPUR \ MD v CHHATTISGARH w WRIT PETITION NO. 305 OF 2005 PETITIONERS 1. Smt. Shakuntala W/o Dinesh Choubeyey, aged about 40 years. /2. Dinesh Choubey S/o Late Ram Krishna Choubey, aged about 50 years. Both resident of Bajrang Ward No.1, Rajnandgaon, Nagar Nigam, Rajnandgaon, Tahsil and District Rajnandgaon (CG). VERSUS State of Chhattisgarh, Secretary Department of Home Affairs, D.K.S. Building Raipur (C..) Director General of Police, Chhattisgarh, Police Head Quarter, Raipur, Tahsil and District Raipur (CG). The Collector, Rajnandgaon,Tahsil and District Rajnandgaon (C.G.) The Superintenden of Police, Police Training school, Rajnandgaon, Tahsil and District Rajnandgaon (CG). District Co—operative Agriculture rural Development Bank Maryadit , Rajnandgaon, Through its Branch Mananger, Rajnandgaon, Tahsil and District Rajnandgaon (CG). /6 Vikray Adhikari / Sales Officer, District Co—operative Agiculture rural Development Bank Maryadit , iaina-on ‘ . L. WRI $ION U S 226 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA 0 As stated in the cause title. G t ; r ndga. iCG) XI~HC-22 16-3-2005, Mr. Awadh Tripathi, counsei for the pehtloners " Mr. Bhaskar PYasi, Pahei L¢ wyer for the State/respondents No 1 to 4 ‘ Heard both the counsel.‘ The main grievance raised v the petitioners by thiswrit petition under Article 226/227 ofthe Constitution f indie is that respondente No 1 & 2 have utilized the petitioners land ad easuring 740 acres fot the purpose of. construction of Police Training Centre that too Without initiating any acqutsmon proceedings and no ompensation has been awarded to the . petitioners and they have taken e possession and constructed the Police Training Centre without acquiring the Iand. The petitioners made several representations. but to no resul. 'This fact has'been admitted by the respondehts in response to Anne i re P-3, the notice issued on behaif ofgthe petitioners. The Superintendent f Police vide Annexure P—4 dated 1441- 2003 informed the petitioners’ cou sel that proceedings for acquisition under the Land Acquisition Act are bein initiated but even then nothing has been done and the iand was taken into oasesSIon as back as 11 years ago Learned counsel for the p tioners argued that on the one hand the petitioners land has been taken into possesSion 11 years back Without gwing any compensation or rent f the user of Iand in accordance with the law and on the other hand the pe itioners took a Ioan for purchase of tractor in the year 1995 against whic they have already paid Rs 2 11 000/- whereas the principie amount ad anced to the petitioners%Rs.1 ,46,590l , now respondent No.3 the Colie or is forcing the petitioners to pay an amount of Rs1 66 000/- failing w ich auction proceedings of the petitioners’ other land Will take place Learne counsel furdier argued that this is a case I @ \ { XI-HC-22 3am, WWI—qr,W m wRR No, q 0 5 . .................... W 2003 W 31WW mm WW mgmmwfa'a ‘ WW%‘WW z , émf%mm%:1 of the petitioners‘ {and to the extent of 7.40 acres and on the other hand, on ‘ account of non-payment‘of some a cunt regarding the tractor Ioan they are ,i: again auctioning the other land f the petitioners and not paying any i/ compensation regarding the land air ady acquired. in the circumstances, iearne counsel for the petitioners requested that the petitioners may be allowed o make a representation to respondents No.2 & 3 and they be directed to co sider the grievance of the petitioners at the eariiest and do justice with the p titioners to which iearned Panel Lawyer appearing on behalf of the State/res ondents No.1 to 4 has no objection; Having heard learned‘couns i for the parties and having regard to the facts and circumstances of the cas , the petitioners are allowed to make a ‘ detailed representation raising all t eir grievances to respondents No.2 8. 3 i within ten days from today and res ancients No.2 & 3 are directed to decide the representation of the petitioners within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of the same after co sidering all the grievances raised by the u petitioners and pass a reasoned o der. However, the petitioners wiil be at liberty to approach this Court again if the respondents fail to pass any order y on the representation made by the petitioners, in accordance with law. ée> With the above directions the petition stands disposed of. Consequently, M.(W.)P.No.7127/2005, l.A.Nos.1 778/2005 & 1779/2005 also stand disposed of. v Parties are entitled for certified copy of this order. edi‘ \ L‘C.g“ e was