'^ HIGH COURT OP JUDICATURE CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR SINGLE BENCH HON'BLE SHRI S.R. NAYAK, CJ. PETITIONERS WRIT PETITION No.5954 OF 2005 1. Smt. Kejabai W/o Shri Muku Sahu. Aged about 80 years; 2. Baratia S/o Muku Sahu: Aged about SOyears; 3. Sukhchand S/o Muku Sahu; Aged about 55 yeare; 4. Roopchand S/o Muku Sahu: Agecl about 53 years; 5. Motiram S/o Chaitram; Aged about 55 years; 6. ^hwini S/o Chaifram; ^ed abeut 45 years; All residents of VJIIage Sondongri, PO Tendua, District Raipur (CG) RESPONDENTS Versus 1. State of Chhattisgarh Through THE Secretary Revenue Department, DKS Bhawan Raipur, Raipur (C.G.) 2. The Collector, Raipur DistrictRaipur (C.G.) 3. Chhattisgarh Housing Board having its Office at Shankar Nagar, Raipur (CG)_ 4. The Executive Engineer, Chhattisgarh Housing Board, Shanker Nagar, Raipur (C.G.) Present: Shri Anoop Majumdar, learned counsel for the petitionere. Shri Yashwant Singh, learned G.A. for the State/ respondents 1 & 2. Shri Sanjay Patel, leamed counsel for respondents 3 & 4. ORALORDER (PassedonS11* July, 2006) This writ petition is totally misconcehwd and not maintainable. To put the case of the petitfonere. in brief, is that inittaUy proceedings were initiated under the Urban Land Ceiling Act to determine the excess land held by the petitioners, but, those proceedings did not culminate In any order under th^said Act. In other words, subject land dld not vest in ttie State Govemment under the Urban Land Ceiling Act. When the matter Q\5^b —^— stood thus, the State, in exercise of 'rts eminent domain power, acquired the subject land for a public purpose under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short "the Acf). It appears that the petitioners are not satisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded by ttie Land Acquisition Officer. If that is the grievance of the petitioners, they ought to have worked out the legal remedies provided in several tiere under the Act. Initially, they should have sought reference of their claims to the Qvil Court for higher rate of compensation and pursued further remedies by way of appeals to this Court and the Supreme Court. and without resorting to such permissiMe legal remedies made available to the petitioners under the Act, quite curtously, this writ petition 3s filed "for a direction to the respondente to continue ttie petitioners to be in possession of the land and also to pay adequate compensation to them and to permit Uiem to cultivate ttie land". Indeed, ttie prayers are quite startling, in deedS If the acquisitton of the land itself is bad on any permissible ground, the petitionere ought to have sought for quashing <rf the land acquisition proceedings, that is to say, notification i^ued under Section 4(1) and declaration made under Section 6 of the Act. The petitioners have not sought any such relief in this writ petiton. The wrtt petition is, therefore. dismissed. No costs Sd/- Chief Justice 9^'A