^ IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR PETITIONER W.P.(ClNo.: ^h^fi /2011 "Shamsunissa Begum, w/o Late Ahmed Ullah Khan, Aged about 69 years, R/o Near Chotapara Maszid, Raipur (C.G.) Through Power Of Attorney holder - Anamullah Khan, S/o Ahmed Ullah Khan, Aged about 43 years, R/o Baijnath Para, Raipur, Tahasil and District Raipur (Chhattisgarh). VERSUS RESPONDENTS .....r^ r\K-;'Ny;"^ ^y~..-^f\\ ^^'"x^ y: ;.-y:.\c .•••\^' .^\AC^ <^:"'v ^s^ State of Chhattisgarh, Through: Secretary, Housing and Environment, D. K. S. Bhavan, Mantralaya, Raipur(C.G.) Director, Town and Country Planning, Chhattisgarh, Raipur (C.G.) Raipur Development Authority, Through - Chairman, Shastri Chowk,Raipur(C.G.) WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA FOR ISSUANCE OF WRIT/WRITS. IN NATURE OF CERTIORARI. MANDAMUS. OR ORDER/ORDERS OR DIRECTION/DLRECTIONS. ffiGHCGLTRT OF CHHAT3l1ISGARH ATBILASPUR PRTITTONBR %7RCTPBTmON(C)No.5.339Qf2Q11 SliamsiiTsissa Begam. BRSPONDENTS VERSUS State ofChhattisgarh & Others. •^e- K 'i^- WRTT PETmON UNDER AR.TICLE 226:OF THE CQNSTITUTIQN .OF INDIA SB: Hon'bie Shri Satish K. Agnihotri. J. Pre^efit: Shri Yogesh Paiidey, Advocate tbr the petitionw. Shri Kisliore Bhadiiri,Additioiial Advocate (jeneral for tlw State. Shri Sumesh Bajaj, Advocate for tibo respondeiit No. 3. ORDER (Passed on 12til day ofSepteniber, 2011) 1< By thi^ petttio?!^ the petitioner ^eekg quaghitiig the Kanial Vihar YoJna to the extent where it envisages allotmant of only 35% development laTid m lieu of the land of the p^tition^ iurther to direct the regpondents to compensate fhe petittoner fw the entire 4180 sq. tnte. of land or m alternative^ allot her devetopment land of eqiiivalait size.TTie petitioner fyrther aeeks adequate compen^ation of land wNch was relinquished by the ancestor^oftiie tate liu^and ofthe petitioner for the use ayid benefit ofthe puWic at larga Z Tt appears, fhat tiho petitiotier is aggri^ved by noTS-grant of fuit compensation-as required uTider the ^cheme, secorsdly^ the autlioritie<-i are acqniring the land which is the ancestral property of tlie petitioiier. Tt is a case wliere it seems fhat:th@1and in qixegtian ig b^itsg taken on the basis of conseTit of the petitiorser, arsd not under tiie provigions ofT.and Acquisition Act. Tf fhe petitionCT fe aggrim^d by any action of the respondent authorities^ it is for the petitioner to withdraw hig consent At this stage; when a gettleTnent in the pnx^ess is ander coiisideration betweers the parties for acquisition as well as for graiit of cotnpen^atioiny tlie Court ghould restraiii iteelf from iTiterfering with the proceedings/ 3, The petition is prematurs at tNs stage and as such^ the ganie ig disniissed. However, the petitioner may approach the appropriate authority for grant of cofnpeTisation and other reliefey as prayed for in thi^ petition. Tf tlie grievance of the petitioiier stitt surviveg, tiie petitioner may approach the Conrt^ ifso advised. \ Sd/- ^^' Abotri