^a- ^ii'&Ai^""'' >-WP ^ 'S^ ^WM^, &V\WI<a, fadiyy WH<ir tli*11t»a "^1.200 3n^T'q°ra?(13^3^';i) sn^i^ii'ftmv 'tTOi sni^r ^fflNa' TOiw^i nai%?f NVISION BEN HON'BLE MR. DHIRENDR, HON'BLE MR. R.N. CHANbRAKAR. JJ Writ Appeal No.83/Z008 (Appeal under section 2 of the C.6. Act, 2| High Aepellant Petitioner Vs Respondents ?fRT^T ^^?ISLTTT^T?RRR^—FS/95—11 /2008—\ 1. Smt. Wd/o holder) years, 2. Ramesli +l<<icl<il-f •WRff •?fe<A ^tf^R ir siRCT sata Hl MISHRA <& Court (Appeal to &ivision Bench) 006) ^avitri Dubey, aged about 50 years, Late Jagatnarayan [5ubey, Caste- Brahnjin, through power of attorney Gulabdutt Dubey, aged about 70 |S/o Late Kedarnath Dubey (C6) ;s|h Kumar Dubey, aged about 39 years,|S/o Sulabdutt Dubey, Both re^ident of Village Sardi, Tahsil Baikunthpjur, Oistrict Koria (C.6.) 3. Maherjdra Kumar, aged about 34 years, S/o B|ha9wat Prasad, R/o Village Sardi, Tahsil Baikunthpur, Oistrict Koria (C.6.) 1. Statejof Chhattisgarh acting Throu9h: the j Secretary, Rehabilitation bepar^ment, &.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (C6) 2. South] Eastern Coal Fields Limited Throu^h the Seneral Mana9er, Baikur^-hpurarea, District- Koria (C6) 3. Sub ^rea Manager, Charcha, West Collier^, (S.E.C.L.) Post Charcha, District Koria (JC6) 4. Collec-^or, Koria, Baikunthpur (C6) 5. Sub-E)}visional Officer, Baikunthpur, &istri4t- Koria (C.6.) V!R'vtJt EJstrT gS'lIRRnw-li^lM—FS/95—11/2008—1,00.000. ' k,:.e-S9b. 1 %9^:|J ... .// !;;^ t'sif'y '*;'••', I.i ..•*>•" vnaw»s am^iwferoff W W^ff in*iiq> 'yst'^Wv^i, a-fll-y'Ko, fadiyy ^mvtf 9wi<ti sn^i '^^a ('yt^^y) TOTOITdft?! 3]f^I -T^- Present: Mr. D.N. Prajapati, Advocate for Mr. Vinay Harit, Dy. Advocate Gen^ Mr. Vinod Deshmukh, Advocate foif the appellents. ^ral for respondent No.l, 4 & 5. respondent No.2 <& 3. O R A L fc> R & E R ab (28th Apr? Dhirendra Mishra. J; 1. The matter is listed on I.A. No.1,1 in preferring this writ appeal, as delay of 14 days. 2. For the reasons indicated in the the affidavit of appellant No.3, filin9 the appeal being bonafide is| 3. Heard on admission. 4. This writ appeal is directed again^ in W.P. (s) No.7179/2007 whereb^ by the learned Single Judge wit|i petitioner No.l namely' Jagatnaraj)/ addition to the compensation i^i Similarly, petitioner No.2 was alscj in the Churcha Colliery. There i| No.2 & 3 that they may consider '.^T3FT? !^r4 H.sUii<AiT ? <f>l<lifl<fl"f iwcit^fft^ <R«SK ^i'sifmsii^; I. Z009) application for condonation of delay ^he same has been preferred with a )plication, which is also supported by 1'he application is allowed. Delay in condoned. t the order dated 4.12.2007 passed / writ petition has been disposed of the observations that husband of t3ubey was 9iven appointment in lieu of acquisition of his land. given employment and he is working a further direction to respondent •he application of petitioner No.3, if ai/an ih 83 -11/2008—1,00,000. 'i:T<'!fi'IEMTga<TCRTtra--.iviI»—FS/3S—11/2008—1.00 000. /^"\ /"/'"^ \ \^y "^;3?iS^''-'~ an^iwft^w 1CPff 4fltf^ dt*1 ^ VAICALATAIAAA ~S:si •^|-4)d<4, yal'M'KB, fsrCTgy *n*«nria»»<p»> TF(200 sii^i Ti5R? (yrf-l^^tr) (i+fllW ^lft^ 3)1^1 3-1 son-in-law of the land oustee acquisition of the land. 5. Mr. Prajapati, learned counsel for the above findings of the learn 'bllicl'il'l *)W?ff'ifft^ <["l<Si< '^^f^CTSTT^T documents filed by the petitiojiers along with writ petition. His grievance is that after emplo>|ment was given against the land acquisition, the same was subsequ^ntly cancelled by the authorities. 6. From perusal of the impugned orcjer it is observed that the direction given in the order dated 9.1.20^6 passed in W.P. No.935/2003 was substantially complied with. In fhat view of the matter, we do not find any merit 1'n this writ apjieal as subsequent cancellation of appointment of the petitioner^ respondents cannot be considerey for the purposes of deciding the present writ appeal. 7. In the result, the writ appeal has to costs. /L^L or their representative by the no substance, the same deserves to be and is hereby dismissed at th^ admission stage itself. No order as 8M was given employment in lieu of |the appellants does not dispute that pd Single Jud9e are based on the Judge Sd../- R.N. CEiandrakar Judge ^'Ri^? ^HHs"!il^^:^?'ff?T!7=i—FS/9S—11/2008—i.00.000.