IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATnseARH AT BILAsPuR WRIT PETITION (C) N0.?:5.%§.0F 2010 PE‘ITTIONERS 1./ Kumar' Ban Goswami, S/o Lcn‘e Kailash Ban Goswami, aged 58 years, / 2. Vijaypal Ban Goswdmi,S/o. la’re Kailash Ban Goswami, aged 48 year's,. / 3. , Rishi Ban Goswami, S/o. IaTe Kaitash Ban Goswami, aged 46 year's .0 / " 4. Rajendra Ban Goswami, S/o. la’re . ,m.‘ Kailash Ban Goswami, a‘ged 44 year‘s 5.“ Rupendr‘a Ban Goswami, S/o. Shri Rishi Ban Goswami, aged 22 years, All R/o. Ghor‘apa’ra, Tahsil KaTghora, DisTricT Korba (C.G.), VERSUS /, RESPONDENTS 1. STaTe of ChhaTTisgarh Through The ' Secrefar'y Revenue/ IndusTries DeparTmen’r, . D.K.S. Bhawan ManTralaya, Raipur' (6.6.) 2f: The CollecTor Korba and Posted under Secretary ChhaT'risgarh Governmenf Revenue Depar’rmenf, DisTricT—Korba (6.6.) , 3. The Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue) KaTghora, Disfric‘l' Korba (C.6.) 4/.The Land AcquisiTion Officer, KaTghora, Tahsii KaTghora, DisTricT Korba(C.G.) 5. The General Manager, N.T.P.C. Limited, oba, isric Korba (6.6.) W/ a . ‘ Kr Dtt OUNSTITUTION OF INDIA. HE WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF T @ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR WRIT PETITION (C) NO.2525 OF 2010 PETITIONERS \ Kumar Ban Goswami & Others Versus State of Chhattisgarh & Others (Writ Petition under Article 226 ofthe Constitution of India) Single Bench : Hon’ble Shri Satish K. Agnihotri, Jo Present :- Shri RS. Patel, Advocate forthe petitioner. Shri P.K. Bhaduri, Panel Lawyerfor the State. RESPONDENTS Shri B.D. Guru & Shri Shashank Thakur, Advocates for the respondent No.5. ORDER ORAL (Passed on this 13‘ day of July, 2010) 1. Challenge in this petition is to the notification dated —8-2009 (Annexure — P/1) issued under the provisions of Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 on the ground that the land in dispute is a good agricultural land having high fertility. The petitioners raised objections also to the competent authority on 7-1 1-2009 (Annexure — - P/2) and on 17-2—2010 (Annexure — P/5). 2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, on instructions, submits that he does not want to press this petition on merits; however, learned counsel prays that therespondent authorities may be directed to consider and decide the objections of the petitioners before proceeding further in the land acquisition proceedings. At this juncture, learned counsel appearing for the State submits that if the objections raised by the petitioners have not been considered the same shall be done at the earliest before proceeding further in the land acquisition proceedings. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.5/NTPC also submits that since the objections of the petitioners are pending consideration the authorities may be directed to consider the \gbjections and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law. \ s directed to consider and 5. In View of foregoing, the Staielrespondent 1 1—2009 ure — PIZ) and on 17—2—2010 (Annexure — PIS)‘ in accordance with law and on its own merits, before proceeding in the land acquisition proceedings. decided the objections raised by the peiitioners on 7-1 (Annex and directions, the wrii petition is 6. With the aforesaid obsenlations ' ‘ Sdl— disposed of. SATISH K. AGNIHOTRI Judge e ‘Gowri