SWG^ BtNC^ ^-1 •^G^~l /' IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR W. P. (C) No. ^Dl-jO OF 2011. PETITIONERS ^ ^4^^ ^w ^^v ^^^ :1. Duryodhan, S/o. Kapil, aged about 62 years, Caste Bareth ,.2. Sushil, S/o. Duryodhan, aged about 32 years, Caste Bareth 3. Kaushlesh, S/o. Duryodhan, aged about 28 years, Caste Bareth Petitioners no. 1 to 3 are R/o. Village Nariyara, Tahsil Akaltara, District Janjgir - Champa (C.G.). 4. Shashi, D/o. Duryodhan, aged about 35 years, Caste Bareth, R/o. Village Nariyara, Tahsil Akaltara, District Janjgir—Champa (C.G.), at presently Torwa, Bilaspur, Tahsil 8s District Bilaspur (C.G.) 5. Gendeshwari, W/o. Duiyodhan, aged about 30 years, Caste Bareth, R/o. Village Nariyara, Tahsil Akaltara, District Janjgir - Champa (C.G.), at presently Village Jhalmala, Tahsil Akaltara, District Janjgir- Champa (C.G.) VERSUS RESPONDENTS 1. State of Chhattisgarh, Through : Secretary, Department of Industries, D.S.K. Bhawan, Raipur (C.G. ^•"':^~:::ss.. .-'<-" ..r;y 'ST/"^-'^;' </' '&';fl^~l:^'^ li 2. The Collector, Janjgir, District Janjgir- Champa (Chhattisgarh) 3. Land Acquisition Officer, (Sub Divisional Officer) Janjgir, District Janjgir-Champa (Chhattisgarh) 4. General Manager, Wardha Power Plant Ltd. Akaltara, District Janjgir- Champa (Chhattisgarh) 5. M/s. Wardha Power Plant Ltd., Akaltara, A Joint Venture of M/s. K.S.K. Engeiy Ventures Private Ltd. 431/A, Road No. Jublee Hills Hyderabad (Andhra Prasad) HIGH COIJRT OF CHHATTI8GARH AT BIIASPIJR WRIT PETmON CQNo. 4040 of2011 PETmONER RESPONDENTS WBJT PETITION LTNDER ARTICLE 226/227 OF T] coNSTmmoN OFINDIA Preseiit: Shri P.M.Shrivs®,Advocate for tfae petitioaa'. . Shri V.V.S.Moorthy, Deputy Advouate Generdl for llie State/respondent. No. 1 to 3. Shri KashifShakeel, Advocate for the Cavealor/CSIDC (Passed on 07'" day of September, 2011) The pe'titioner seeks a direction to the respondents to consider the objection of tfae petitioner and pay compensation to with interest and fiuther, fhe respondents be directed to provide service and rehabiUtation to the petitioner. 2. Shri Moorthy, leamed Deputy Advoeate General ajaearmg for the State/respondent No. 1 to 3 suhmits that firstly, there is no challenge to the award and secondly, compensation has beea detemriaed and is lying with the respondaut No. 3 which the petitioaers cantake fromthe respond«atNo. 3. 3. Since there is no challenge to tjie detenniaation of compensation and the petitioner is not seeking any eiihanoemcnt of the award, this petition may not be tnaintainable. Ifthe petitioner is aegrieved by the amoimt of eompensation, the petftioner may ^pproach Ihe appropriate authoritv as provided imder the law. 4. 8o far as direetion to g-ant rehabilitation to Ihe petitionera is concemed, there is ao statiitory provision to rehabilitate the petAionera. HowevOT. since the petitioners relv on a poliev of the .' ^' 1 ^^>;L:>^t^^ ^'1'?^ C'f ^ / 'f.^' State Govemment (Aimexitre P/3), tfae petitioners have to first approach to the authorities for rehabilittftion, if the petitioners are enrtitled to. In view ofthe above, leamed couasel appearina for the petitioners seefcs liberty ofthis Coin-t to approach the authorities for grant of rehabilitation and service to the petitionere. Tn view ofthat, the petition is disposed of reserviag liberfy to the petitionera to make a reprKientation to the appropriate airthority, if so adv-ised for grant ofrehabilitation and service, imder the policy, as aforestated. No order asto cwts. Sd/- SATISH K. ANGNIHOM Judge Amlt