Q 4 c 4.v°^^ ^ IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WRIT PETITION (Q No.£:)~3S<Z /2011 PETITIONER ^^^./ ^"" x ^\.ly-"",.-<' ^y y \.^ .^ .''y ^y/' ''^y RESPONDENTS 1. <-" Amresh Singh , aged about 42 years, S/o Shri Ramashanker Singh, by Caste Rajput, R/o , Majidpara, Vijay Nursery School Road, (Infront of DFO house) Manendragarh Distt. Koriya Through its power of attorney holder Rajesh Singh aged about36 years, S/o Ramashanker Singh R/o Ward no. 17, Majidpara, Vijay Nursery School Road, (Infront of DFO house) Manendragarh Distt. Koriya VERSUS The State of Chhattisgarh, through Secretary, Department of Revenue, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur The Collector, Distt. Koriya, Baikunthpur Sub Divisional Officer (R)/Nazul Officer, Manendragarh Distt. Koriya. WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA ^^w i HIGH COURTOF CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR WRIT PETITION (C) N0.5338 OF 2011 PETITIONER Amresh Singh Versus The State of Chhattisgarh & Others RESPONDENTS (Writ Petition under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India) Single Bench : Hon'ble Shri Satish K. Agnihotri, J. Present:- Shri Parag Kotecha, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri Shashank Thakur & Shri Ajit Singh, Panel Lawyers for the State. O RD E R (Passed on this 28th day of September, 2011) 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is in occupation of the land in dispute since 1997 and under the provisions of Section 3 of the Chhattisgarh Nagariya Kshetron Ke Bhoomihin Vyakti (Pattadhriti Adhikaraon Ka Pradan Kiya Jana) Adhiniyam, 1984, the land has to be settled in his favour. The petitioner has made an application accordingly to the competent officer i.e. Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue), Manendragarh, on 29-10-1997 (Annexure ~ P/2) and thereafter before the Nazul Officer, Manendragarh, on 27-9-2001 (Annexure - P/3), but till date no decision has been taken. 3. Shri Thakur & Shri Singh, tearned Panel Lawyers appearing for the State, submit that there is no threat of any eviction until the applications of the petitioner, as aforestated, are finally considered & decided, in accordance with law. 4. In view of the clear & categorical statement made by the learned counsel appearing for the State, the perception of the petitioner that there is a threat of eviction is not established. //^'^^ '% ^ ^' ...••••;:^;-.,. '? :^r^' .^ 5. However, in view of the aforestated facts, the respondents are directed to consider & decide the applications of the petitioner, in accordance with law and on its own merits, as expeditiously as possible. Till the decision is taken on the applications of the petitioner, no steps to remove the petitioner from the land in his possession shall be taken. 6. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of. Gowri Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge