^CY^ "^v" mGH COORT OF CHHATTISGARH AT SILA8PVR W.P.(CiN0^6212/2Q07 PBTITIONBR RESPONDEMTS Vs. 1. 2 3. 4. Madaxilal Sahu, aged about 50 years, S/o. Shri SukhJal R/o. Vill^e- Kopcdih, TahsU aad Distt. Rajnaadgaon (CQ) State of Chhattisgarh, fhrough Secretaiy, Departuient of Conunerce & Industiy, Maatralaya, DKS Bhawan, P.0. & Distt. Raipur (CGr) Collector, Rajnaadgaon (CG) Sub Divisional Officer, Rajnaadgaon (CG) Chhattisgarh State ludustrial Developiaent Corporation Ltd., (An uadertakiiig of fhe State of Chliattisgarh), LIC Cominercial Complex, (groiind floor and 2nd flooi) Paadri, P.0. &, Distt. Raipur (CG) WRIT PBTITION UNDBR ARTICLB 226 OF THB COMSTITUTION OF INDIA (SB: Hon'bte Mr, Satish K. Agaihotrl, J.) Shri B.R.Ghosh, counsel for fhe petitioner. Shri Sunaesh Bajaj, Goveraiaent Advocate for the State. •\..'. ORDBR {Passed oa tltis IIth day ofOctober, 2007) The petitioner, a resident ofviUage Kopcdifa, Tahsil & District Rajnandgaon, ia this petition, seeks foltowing reUef: i) The State respondent-1 kindly be directed to fite a comprehensive report of its seheine on fhe formation of a aew big Industrial Estate at Jorataral covering seven viB^es (JorataBai, Birejhar, Fuljhar, Indawaai, Magarlota, Aajora aad Kopedih) aad after perusal ofthe scheine, it niay kmdly be rejected by issuaace of a writ of Certiorari. — '-^ u) The State respondent -1 khidly be directed to resort to the developiaent of the existing iadustrial eslates at Tedesara and Rasmara by a writ of Mandainus. iii) Aiiy oftier writ/order/direction deemed expedient in the circuinstaaces of fhe case, inay also kindly be allowed iacludiug cost of this petition. Accordiag to leamed couasel appearuig for fhe petitioner, ^fc acquisition of the land which is fhe sole soiuce of iaconie of the petitioner, amoimts to violation of fundam.ental rights enshriued under Article 21 of fhe Constitution of India. This issue is no longer res integra as it is a setUed position of law fhat right to property is not a fundamental right. The petitioner inay have other legal right but fhe petitiouer inakes it clear that ttiis petition has been fiiled on fhe sole ground of vlolation of Article 21 of the Constitution of India. The petiti.on.er has not questioned the acqiusition of land ia dispute on auy other .groiuid and in&rmed fhat fhe petitioner has not even filed an objection as provided uader fhe provisions of Section 5-A of (he Laad Acquisition Act The petition is vague, it does not sfaow aay cause of action for iuvokmg fhe jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution oflndia. The petitfon is accordi&gly disiaissed suuuaarily. Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge ^-