^a t£L£:Btn^j w^y'"^ v--^^%..--""-1- L ^?-'n0 \-v"' ^3^' .'?IS <k.}-~''' ^yy o^"^' tfUfitcB-e*. 3^ ovu.tiuoet. t9Ttttwt®Kdhttyitl (BW.) W.P.-fC) No. ^363 i 201 O ^>h^TCl4 cTToT "EF^T, f^TT ^T. <ft 'V^ STTg ^FWT 75 c^, p|41<i4- t1lo1<9'<Ic;l, ?!?. *1lc1<a'<l'qi, f^TyTT — villu<jri'< ^TFTT (^.TT.) ^ ^."T. WCT'T, SKT- 1. ct)<»l<W<, cpl<4fd'4 4>d<tri<i, f^TcTT- ^Tf^M^-'ETmT (E?.TT.) 2. 'yST chl44l<?1-1 srf^T^, 4'qi'ya ii<?i<a'<fc,i, f^rr— uTT5Pft?-'ETfITT (^5.7T.) ^ 3. 3fjfS]'^14i1^ STf^PT^, Pl-Tl^ldl eTFTf '^^ ^T ^WFT, ^TR7 10 ^l<yl<!sl'fl'^l, RraT- vjii\ii^\! - 'cmr (s'.'n'.) /4. ae'Mldcii';, ast'ild *iiQi<si<;i'c<i, RT^TT — N'^^ ^jTif^-^fqT (E?.TT.) i,u(2"^J \%^~^_ ^A.^ ^ '^T'T w?r :Er^T q^ c^ 'ERT, f^Tcrra'- ^idy^f^i, u?. *I|QKSI'<I'C;I, 'f^ToTT —ul'1^1^^ .'E[N' (S'.7T.) .AIlFqcpicftaI yTC1<<q|cO<|u| ^ 2. yi^i/^te ^iRicbi sRpftT ai-^^ci 226/227 'qT^N 'H'Rtll'l I w B!*!r ;niT ?^H !:TT ii ;t i|:1;|.!- .^ssw .rf-''^,,^, ^,?'""^ MGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WMT PETITIONfC) No. 4303 of2010 PETmONER RESPQNDENTS Purushottam Lal Chanda. VERSUS State ofChhattisgarh & Others. WRITPETmONIAOERARnCLE 226/227 OF'THE CQNSTTTUTIDN QF INDLA SB: Hon'ble Shri Satish K. Affnihotri; J. Present: Shri Shashi Kumar, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri ShashankThakur,PanelLawyerf6rtlteState. \ QRDERfORAL) (Passed on 09tt day of August, 2010) 1. By this petition, the petitioner claiins share in the compensation for acquisition offhe land bearing Khasra No. 418, 318 and 435, sftuated at village Bhufha, Patwari Halka No. 4, Tahsil MaBsharaid, Distriet Janjgu- Champa, on the basis tiiat the land was a joint p-operty and partition had taken place between the petitioner and the respondent No. S.The respondent No.5 had taken ttie artire amount of compeitsation and Ae authorities have not exaained ths ease of the petitianer fcefbre the awarding the compensation to the respondent No. 5. 2. It is mformed at the Bar that fhat acquisition has taken place in the year i. The petitioner has not taken any steps diiring the proceedings of acquisition ufthe above stated land. 3. Now, at this siage, the High Court cannot decide the fact asto whether the petitioner had a share in fhe above stated property or whether the compeiisation was paid to one of the shareholders or to both. Even otherwise, no documents have been produeed except eopy of revenue record i.e. Kistbandi Khatauni (Aimexure P/l) and a letter dated 12.11.2007 (Aimexure P/2) •written to the petitioner by the respondent No. 3, wharein it is stated that the compensation has been paid to the respondent No. 5 on the ground that both offhem had a jojhnt aecount. 4. Even otherwise, the disputed question of facts cannot be settled by this Court in exercise of its power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Thus, the petition, being devoid of merit, is dismissed at tiie motion stageitself. _ — - _ - —— - —— Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge