EN TkEE HigE-E QSURT Q? 333E€ATURE %?EE§.%§PL!R5 wHAwwgARH ‘1( wmT PETETIQN No. R y w 2m) 1. Rainish Kumar Bansal aged abbut 29 years, S/o D!harampal Bansa! x 2. Rahui Dev, aqed about 25 years! .E S/o Dharampal Bansal Both residents of village Janjgiri, Tehsil Dhamdha, District Durq (Chhattisgarh) Versus State of Chhattisgarh through the Secretary, Department f Revenu D.K.S. Bhawan MantralaaRaiCir Chhattisgarh) 2. TheColIectoDu s 3. Power Grid Cooratin of India Limited A Governmnt of dia Enterprise, hrough its Chief Manager, Padmanabhpur, Durg, District Durg (Chhatftisgarh) o e, , v,D ( ‘ r,rq. Ditrict Durq (Chhattisgarh) RIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 QNSTITUTION DF IND rpo , e In t W /2 ‘ C I ' XI-HC 78 ./.m3w 2w mWW1§f§@W $3§fwm WWW, gém‘ §, W . wVMZ’M WW' mm (Wm m m3: m 2810312003 Shri Plashant Mishra, Smt. Anju Abuja, PL for Admittedly, some land acqm‘md in the year 1995 und Act, 1894 for the benem o} Ltd/respondent no.3 hemin. averxn'ents made in the writ petition some part of the land belonging to the petitioners was not utilized by mspondent no.3. Accordingly, the petitioners, oved applications vide Annexuies PIS dated 04/06/ 1999 and 9/6 datcd 01/05/2001 befom the Collector, Durg, for return of e land to them as it was not being used by tespondent no.3. It i further stated that on 18/03] 2002 the petitioners had moved an Secretaxy, vide Annexuxe P/7. But as no action has been taken on their representation, assert the peu'tioners, they have been é compelled to approach this C for xeh'ef. c position, no dix'ection as claimed to command the respondents to unsel for the petitioners. e State. belonging to the petitioners was 3r the provisions of Land Acquisition ' Power Grid Corporation of India Apparently, as appears from the ‘ther representan’on befoxe the Chief V Having heard‘ learned ounsel and considering the legal mm: aim arm - z , WWW ‘§ f‘m? m1: a; Wm am return tha land to the petitioners can be issued. However, as the mpresenfations am pending before the authoriu'es, fhie writ peu'n'on is disposed of by dimming the appropriate authon'ties to consider the prayer of the petitioners on its own merits in ‘ ‘t accordance with law. It is made clear that the Court is not expressing anyoptuion on merits of the petiu'oners’ claim or e ‘contenijons raised on their behalf nor should this order be construed as a direction to ommand the State Government to return the land to the petition rs. ations and directions, this writ petition stands disposed of. O Jnsequently, M.W.P.No.235/ 2003 for interim relief and I.A.No.6441 disposed of. With the aforesaid ob. Sd/— P.C-Nai Judge k 2003 for urgent hearing also stand