^••,L^ ^ c^r^^]^ IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR Writ Petition (C) No. & of 2010 Petitioner RESPONDENTS: ^^€ ,j^^ ^^-' .^ ^:^ v^-y ^" /..•^- Sangeeta, Aged - 38 YRS., w/o DeshDeepak Garg, R/o Chaube Colony, Raipur Versus i. Naya Raipur Development Authority, Thro! its Chairman, Office at: Near Mantralaya, Mlahanadi Gate, / Raipur(CG) 2. Collector (Revenue) Raipur WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA ^\<3 PETITIONER HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR WRIT PETITION (C) N0.6145 OF 2010 Sangeeta Versus RESPONDENTS Naya Raipur Development Authority & Another (Writ Petition underArticle 226 ofthe Constitution of India) Single Bench : Hon'ble Shri Satish K. Agnihotri, J. Present:- Shri Raja Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri M.P.S. Bhatia, Deputy Government Advocate for the State. ORDER (ORAL) (Passed on this 26th day of October, 2010) 1) Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2) Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is the owner of the land bearing Khasra Nos.21 , 22,25,26 & part of 29, village-Kotni, Patwari Halka No.20, Revenue Circle-Mandir Hasaud, Tahsil-Arang, District-Raipur. There was a consent for acquisition of the land on payment of compensation thereof on the basis of the fact that the said land was irrigated tand. Thereafter, the compensation was determined on the basis of being non-imgated land. 3) Shri Bhatia, leaned Deputy Government Advocate appearing for the State, submits that there is a dispute with regard to nature of the land, as according to the respondents, it is a non-irrigated land and according to the petitioner, itis an imgated land. However, the respondent authorities are going to determine and give compensation to the petitioner as early as possible, having regard to the nature of the land. Shri Bhatia further submits that it shall be considered and decided at the earliest within a period of four weeks. 4) Be that as it may, if a representation is made by the petitioner to the authorities/ Collector, Raipur, questioning the nature ofthe land, the same shall be considered and decided, in accordance with law and on its own merits, before determining the compensation. 5) In view of the foregoing, according to learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, nothing survives for adjudication, at this stage. 6) Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of. Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge