INTHEHlG; ^(MIR®Cffi^HHA1^S(|^ •^AT^BE[1^^:K;;1'' :/":v-.':-^ '^w.p.(c)]Nb.J;i;£43,^^,; (Qther Matter - Single .Bench) -= - ^ Petitioners ^•^.^^K. ^•^'". '^C3^^" i^ca-i"Jr -ResiR'ondents S^^Q S^'iy!SMaS^&f lli ft^'rfA»Wfi'Tifes^ II :^^^K,'?^C l'«i~? ?KR3r--i.) :i&| No.&sa-»6'"B'^/'w.^ .SS.M.Ki:^*/ .< ^w- /i,^.'M0liit;Ki^arI)esfajnukliI aged about 61 years,: .^' S/oLateUBuaedSmghDSshniuldi / 2.'- .Angaralc 'Deo :'. •':'':-; '• ''r^ : '":'':: Stge&'aSouS-^vyesrs^ •::':'.-. ^ ,•^^.1: S/o-M6Bit<iEi^aTf!E)eslmitMH^ ' l.,':.Both:resyiertt¥i^]\^^0',-..:,-:'::;::::,^ ^•..^lFadniaaalah^gSstt.^I^rg:^^ fs»..,. :.:, ••; :•.' ^ • .. . .' -.-. • . . ..'. •••... 1 .: .... a:fERSBS&ff(s;»!?::.:,:,,^..•,,;.^ ., :::': 1 ^. -..V^. ^: 1. Municip^E&rporatio ThrQugH.^'Comnussionel-: . '. r Miinicipal E'orporation Bhilai, Tah. & ©istt.Durg (C.G.) / 2. .GallectQr.Dura . Tah. & Distt. Dui-g (G.G.) /3. Tahsildar ; . ; Durg,Tah.<feDistt.Burg(C.G.^ y 4.. State.'o{:-G attise^^ '6^'^^^ ' Through Prmcipal Secretary Revenue.an^ Dand'Aequisiti Depa.l'fment,<jC)yt.ofCNiattisgarh Mantralaya, D.K.S. Bliavah,) | .'''•.Dtog''(C.G.)::',••''.,,'<^,:--^ ^/s^^'sss:^^^^^^^. ;'iS8r"SK8MiiBBBBSs ^5. K LaiiaAGdui§itS®:n..fOfficer) Authoritv and'SaK DiYisional Qfficer, Durg CC.G.) WRIT PETIJ'ION U^NI^R.AR'TIC'LES 226 OF THE CONSTITlKl'ION OE INBIA. ^.. ^ mOH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR PETITIONER WRIT PETITION (C) No. 643 of2008 : Mohit Kumar Deshmukh & another. VERSUS RESPONDENTS : Municipal Corporation Bhilai & Others. WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA SB: Hon'ble Shri Satish K. Asnihotri, J. Present: Shri V.G.Tamaskar, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri H.B.AGrawai, Senior Advocate with Ms. Itu Rani Mukherjee, Adyocate for the respondent No. 1. ShriA.V.Shridhar,PanelLa.wyerforthe State/respondentNo. 2 to 5. ORDER(ORAL) (Passed on 15U1 day of July, 2010) 1. By this petition,the petitioners seek quashing of communication dated 21.09.2007 (Annexure P/5), 26.09.2007<Annexure P/6), 31.12.2007 (Annexure P/7) and the order dated 11.01.2008 (Annexure P/8). 2. Leamed counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that in eariier petition being W.P.(C) No. 4882/2006, the counsel appearing for fhe respondent-Corporation made a categorical statement that fhe petition scheduled land was under the ownership ofthe petitioner wherein the tubewell was installed. It was.submitted by the counsel appearing for the respondent- Corporation that it has no right over the said tubewell and it was for the petitioners to use it or close it. 3. .Itappears fromthecortespondences dated 21.09.2007 (AnnexureP/5), 31.12.2007 (Annexure P/7), and the order dated 11.01.2008 (Annexure P/8) passed by the Land Acquisition Officer to proceed ;! with the publication of notice under section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. 4. Shri Agrawal, leamed counsel appearing for the respondent- Corporation, submits in categorical terms that till date, no proceeding has taken place after the order dated 11.01.2008 passed by the Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue), Durg. Thus, the stand taken by the respondent-Corporation in W.P.(C) No. 4882/2006 is correct. Shri Agrawal further submits that till the land is properly acquired with or without tubewell, in accordance with law by passing final award,the land with tubewell continues to be in possession ofthe petitioners. 5. It appears that there is an intention to proceed with acquisition ofthe land in dispute. However, till appropriate procedure is followed in accordance with law for acquisition of the land with tubewell located thereon, no authority shall interfere with the possession of the petitioners. 6. In view ofthe foregoing, according to leamed counsel appearing for the petitioner, nothing survives for adjudication in this case. 7. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of. ^. . ^^ocft ^t^ Amit