SINGLE BENCB IN THB HON9BLB HIGff COURT OF CHHATTI8GARH JUDICATURB AT BILASPUR W.P.fcl ATo. M16^ /2011 PBTITIONBR ^ )'. -s^e- ^ ^' RBSPQNDENTS: Budhram S/0 Shri Bhuwan Aged about 50 years Occupation Kotwar R/0 Village Kuhera , Post Rakhi ( Mana camp) , TahsilAarang Dist - Raipur (C.G.) VERSUS (1) State of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary , Department of Revenue Mantralaya,D.K.S. Bhawan Raipur ( C.G.) (2) Collctor, Raipur Dist-Raipur (C.G.) / (3) Sub Divisiohal Officer (Revenue) Raipur Dist Raipur(C. G.) :4- •^..^' liefExecutive Offi\ New Raipur Development Authonty Telibandha Jedhi Vila Near Natioanl Garage Ring Road Raipur i Dist Raipur ( C.G.) (5) Nazul Officer - Capital Area Development Authority Raipur ( Chhattisgarh ) 'WKtST ::PEW[Wbftf U^^R ARTICLE 226/^7 OF TltK CON^TtttTTION bF ^DIA V > EETmONER HIGH COURT QFCHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR WRFF PETITION (Q N0.4166 OF 2011 Budhram RESPONDENTS Versus State of Chhattisgarh & Others OA/ritPetitionunderArticle 226/227 ofth®Constitution of India) SingleBench: Hon'ble Shri Satish K. Agnihotri, J. Present:- Ms. Cteepali Pandey, Aeivocate for the petitiener. Shri Arun Sao, Government Advocate for the State. Shri AmanKesharwani, Advocate on behalf of Shri Sumesh Bajaj, Advocate for the respondent Np.4. ORDERfORAL) (Passed bn this 01st day ofAugust.ZO11} At the yery outeet, learned counsel appearing for the State resporidente submite that the representations have been fited by the petitioner before the Collector, Ratpur, in flie month of July, 2011. The Collector is teking all necessary ste^ to decide the representation of tii6 petitioner expeditiously, in accordance with the provisipns of the orders of the Ideal Rehabilitation Policy @f the Chhattisgarh State, 2007. Some reasonabte time te required to do the needfuland as such, this petition is premature at this stage. Shri Sao, fairly submits that the decision on the representation, as aforestated, shall be taken withln three months after affording an opportunity of hearing to the respondent No.4. In viewof foregoing, according to the leamed counsel for th@ petitioner, nothing survtyes for adjudication. Accordingly, the writ petjtion isdisposed of with ttie afore-stated observation. ft r Sd/- I SatishK.Agnihotn !-•;;::;'':l.;.^'l,:'.Judge ashok