u <^ 81NGLEBENCT IN THE HON9BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH JUDICATURB AT BILASPUR W.P. ( c) No. ^A\^ /2011 PETITIQNBR ^6 ^^^: .ss^-r ^W^'9^>*" ^^- A»ve0'" ...'•• l^ ...-"" ^" '^t ^ Naresh Das S/0 Shri LakhanDas Aged about 37years Occupation Kotwar R/0 Village Banjari Post Kuru , Tahsil Abhanpur Dist Raipur (C.G.) RESPONDENTS: VERSUS ^(1) State of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary , Department of Revenue Mantralaya,D.K. S. Bhawan Raipur ( C.G.) (2) Collctor, Raipur Dist-Raipur (C. G.) -(3) Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue) Raipur Dist RaipurfC.G.) {^^ '^ ^(4)Chief Executive Officer New Raipur Development Authority Telibandha Jedhi Vila Near Natioanl Garage Ring Road Raipur Dist Raipur ( C.G.) .(5) Nazul Officer Capital Area Development Authority Raipur ( Chhattisgarh ) ^ ixnMf PE^WSif VSS^K^RTSCLB 22J/S^7 OFJiliKCOJ^tffi[TTIO^ bF ;;''?':^y'.* '"},. n PETmONER HIGH COURT OFeHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR WRITPETmONfQNO. 4167 OF 2011 NareshDas RESPGNDENTS Versus State of Chhatftsgarh & Others (Writ Petition under Article226/227 ofthe Constitution of India) SingteBench^Hpn'bteShriSatishK^Agnihotrj.J: Present:- Ms;BeepaH Pandey, Advocatefor thepetitioner^ Shri ArunSao, Govemment Advocate for the State. Shri Aman Kesharwani, Advocate on behalf of Shri Sumesh Bajaj. Adyocate for the respondent No.4. GRDER(ORAt.> (Passed onth!s01stdayofAugust, 2011) At the very outset, learned counsel appearing for the State respondents submite that the representations have been flled by the petjtioner before the Collector, Ratpur, in the montti of Juty, 201 1. The Collector is teking all necessary steps to ctecide the representation of the petitioner expeditiously, in accordance with the provisions of the orders of the Ideal Rehabilitation Policy of the Chhattisgarh State, 2007: Some reasonabie time is required to do the needful and assuch, ttiis petition Is premature at this stage. Shri Sao, fajrly submits that the decision on the representation, as aforestated, shatl be taken within three months after affording an opportunity of hearing to the respondent No.4. In view of foregoing, according to the tearned counsel for the petitjoner, nothing sun/ives for adjudication. Accorclingly, the writ petition is disposed of with the afore-stated ; observation. 1 i SatishK.Agnihotri |'l'.':^:::^'\", Judge ashpk