•ingse Q p . | <3O ^•-'^' IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Writ Petition (C) No. _6^_1_°_/2011 Petitioner Respondents J^.ll-- ^'J^^A---^ -••r^1^":^---""" oTp(^?/ Indar Kumar Athwani, Age 59 years, Son of Shri Motumal Athwani, Resident of U-R 5,6, Jeevan Vihar, Telibandha, Raipur, Tehsil and District Raipur (C.G.) Versus / 1. State of Chhattisgarh, Through Chief Secretary, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (Chhattisgarh). 2. Collector, Raipur Ghari Chauk, Collectorate, Raipur (C.G.). ^ 3. Land Acquisition Officer, S.D.M. office (Revenue) Raipur (C.G.). ^4. Chhattisgarh State Housing Board, Thhrough The Chairman, Shankar Nagar, Raipur (C.G.) WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA FOR ISSUANCE OF WMT IN THE NATURE OF MENDAMUS, PROHIBITHON, ORDER OR DIRECTION IN THE LIKE NATURE. iBf 'siliiE PETITiONER iGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR WRIT PETITION (Q N0. 6310 OF 201_1 Sndar Kumar Aihwani RESPONDENTS State of Chhattisaam & Others Writ Peiition under Article 226 of the Constitution of indi Singie Bench : Hon'bie Shri Satish K. Agnihotri, J. Preseni:- Shri Pradsep Mishra, Advocaie for the petitioner. Shri Arun Sao, Government Advocate for the State. ORDER (Passed on this 21s'- day of October, 2011) By this petition, t'ne petnioner seeks a direction to the respondent authorities to stav the proceedings initiated bv the respondent No.2 for cancellation'ofthe petilioner's quarry lease on a part ofthe iand bearinf Khasara No.638, admeasuring area 3.80 acres, P.1-1.No.111 of viilage Pirda, Tahsi! & District Raipur (C.G.) and further direction to the respondent No.2 $o give proper opportunily4o the petitioner for raising his objections and to obtain adequate compensation in the land acquisition proceeding No.OI/A/82/2007-08. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits Ihal ihe petitioner is owner of a stone crusher unn situated at viliage Pirda of Dislrict Raipur. The respondent No.2 allotted quam? iease to the petitioner for digging out stone boulders for a period of ten years on a part of iand bearing Khasra No.638, admeasuring area 3.80 acres, P.H.No.111 of vitlage Pirda, Tahsil & District Raipur, in the year 1997. On 17.12.2007, the said lease was renewed for further period of ten vears upto 16.12.2017. On 31.1Q.2007, the Coiiector issued a notification under Section 4(1) of the.Land Acquisiiion Act, 1894 (for short "ffie Act, 1894") for acquisition of the above mentioned land and subsequentiy deciaration under Section,6(1) of the Act, 1894, was. issued by the State Govt. on 01.02.2008. On 14.03.2008, the Land Aequisition Officer issued notice under'Section 9 ofthe Act, 1894 to the interesied pereons ofthe viiia.qe, l.i:i;.»i!!5Nt^ B. no notice in Ihis regard was issued to the petitioner and on 08.10.2008, the respondent No.3 after enquiry about the objections, compensation and oiher reievant mattere of interesled persons made final av.-ard under Section 11 of the Act, 1894. It appears thai the land in disputewas not invoived. Thereafter, after a period of two years i.e. on 03.08.2010, the respondent No.3 sent a letter to the office of respondent No.2 informing of the knowledge about the quany lease of the petitioner and sought particuiars of the quarry lease. The petitioner came to know about the said proceedings oniy after 03.08.2010. On 24.02.2011, ihe respondent authorities initiated the proceeding for canceliatjon of the lease of the petitioner in an arbitrary manner and issued a notice under Rule 30(26) ofthe Chhattisgarh Minor Minerals Rules, 1996 and asked the petitioner to submit his response within a period of 60 days. Pureuanl thereto, the petitioner submitted his response on 23.04.2011. According to the petitioner, again on 07.09.2011, the respondent authorities Issued a notice and asked the petitioner to appear before the respondent No.2. However, ihe said date was postponed on accounl of administrative reasons. On bare perusal o'the record, ii appears that the petitionsr has faiied to produce any document in support of his contention that any adverse order has been passed against She interest of fhe petitioher. !t appears Shat the matter is pending consideration before the respondent authorities and before passing any order, the petitioner has straightaway approached this Court. Thus, this petition is premature, as no final order on receipt ofthe response ofthe petitioner, has been passed, as pointed out by the| learned counsei for the petitioner, aiso. As an upshot, the writ petition being bereft of merit and is hereby dismissed being premature. — Ashok Sd/- SatishK.Agnihotri Judge i-^'S^