<0/ ^ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH : BIS-ASPUR WRITPETiTSON_Na3512QF_2005 PETITIONERS 1. Mekai Anthony, agocS about 48 y©ars. ; 2. Gebreb Anthony, aged about 42 years. 3. Powlus Anthony, aged about 29 years. Ail sons of Late R. Anthony, residents of Chirmln, District Koriya (CG). RESPQNDENTS Versus 1. South Eastem Coaffieids Ltd., through Managing DirecSor, South Eastern Coalfields -Ltd,< Seepat Road, Bllaspur (CG). • • 2. Mukhaya Khanan Abhiyanta, Chirmiri CoSiiery, South Eastern CoaifJeSds Ltd., District Kdriya (CG). 3. .The Coliector, Koriya, Djstrtet Koriya' (CG). (Writ petltlon under Article 226/227 of the Constftuti©nof india) Slngle Bench : Hon'bie Snri Satish K. Agnlhotn, J, Present:- Mr. Avinash Mlshra, counsei for the petitloners. Mr. H.B. Agrawal, Sr. Advocate with Ms. Meera Jaisv^al, Advocate for the respondents No.1 & 2. IVIr. Arun Sao, Govt, Advocate for the State. aiiKniwa (ORAU (Passed on this 30 day of June, 2009) Heard learned counsej for the parties. 2) it appears that the iand In dispyte, accordlng to the petltioners, was allotted to the father of the petitioners in July, 1975. Thereafter Irs the year, 1978 the same iand was aiiotted to the respondent NoJ» 3) Shri IVilshra, learned counsel appearing for the petstioner submSts that after ailotment of the land the petitloners were put in possession, however, premium of the said iand was not paid, as the petltioners had not received any notice. The CoJlector has declined to grarrl compensation and empioyment on the ground that th.e larid beiongs to SECL. ^,,.,..^:^ ^ Gowri z- 4) ! have heard learned counsei for the parties, perused the pleadings and the documents appended thereto. Disputed facts in respect of the titSe and ownershlp of the iand In question are involved in this case. !n order to estabiish the titie over the land In dlspute, the proper forum is the competent jurisdtetionai civil Court. 5) This Court has no wherewithai to settSe th®disputed questiwi of facts, as it requires examlnation ofwitnesses, evidencss, documents and cross-examination thereof. This CourS deddes the Issue on the basls of affldavit ItseSf that may not be syfficient to dedde the issue with regard to tltle and ownership ofthe parties on the land In question. 6) Under the aforesald circumstances, v/ithout expressing any opinion on the merits of the case; the writ petitlon is dlsml^ed.- However, liberty Is reserved to the petitioners to take recourse to the competent jurisdictional civil Court to establish their title and possession over the land sn dispute. In the event the petitloners succeed In the matter, they may thereafter raise the question of compensation and employment before the appropfiate forum, Ifso advised. Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotn Judge ^