H!GH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH: BILASPUR Writ Petition Lg) No. '663;6 0L2§QT (f 6k Petitioner Amrik Singh, aged about 5O years son of Niranjan singh. résid‘ent of KAungeli Road‘ 27 Khoii Chowk, Biiaspuf (CG). Versus Respondents 1) State of Chhattisgarh, through Coliector, Bilaspur (CG). 2) Superintending Engineer, Department of Public Worke, Biiaspur (CG). V {Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of indie) sB: Hon’bie Mr. Satish K. Agnihotri, J. Freserit: $hri "P7eetam Tiwari. counsel for the petitioner. Shri AM‘nd Dubey, Panei Lawyer for the respondentsiState. ORAL ORDER (Passed on 22"“ November, 200'!) ‘ Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the facts of this case are same as that of Writ Petition No.14‘3 of 2005 ( Rajesh Gauraha and another Vs. State of Chhattisgarh and another) which has already been disposed of by this Court on 25-1 —2005. Leamed counsel prays that the same order may be passed in this case also, to which learned counsel appearing for the respondents/State has no objection. 2) The petitioner has preferred this writ petition under Articie 226 of the Constitution of India, quashing the illegal, unjust and invalid order of v the respondents, whereby Bhoomiswami land of the petitioner bearing Khasra No. 68 area 1 .00 acres has been taken into possession by the respondents and a road has been constructedon the land without valid acquisition of the same, as a result of which neither the petitioner has @ @ been compensated in terms of money nor any aitemative site has been given in lieu of the land used for construction of the road. 3) Learned counsel appearing for the peritioner submitted that the , petitioner has already made a representation before the respondents No. 1 and 2, but they are not deciding or passing any Order on the representation, as-such he submitted that respondent Nort be directed to decide the representation and pass appropriate order in favour of the petitioner, to which learned counsel appearing for the respondents has no objection. /<’\/e 4), Having heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, respondent No.1 is directed to decide the representation of the petitioner and pass appropriate order in the matter after considering ail the points raised by the petitioner within thirty days, ‘It is made clear that in case the representation is not available with respondent No.1 , then the petitioner can furnish copy of the earlier representation within ten days before respondent No.1 . _ 5) With the aforesaid direction, the petition is disposed of. Sdl- Judge Satish K. Agnihotri Raju