AVINASH CHANDRA SONDHI Vs. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY this petition, the petitioners seek a direction to the respondents to refer his applications (Annexure P/2 and P/3) filed under section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, (for short, 'the Act') for its determination.

(2.) SHRI Agrawal, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioners are brother and sisters and are the owners of land in question, bearing Khasra No. 678/1, 678/2, 678/3, 679/3, 685/2, total admeasuring 5.80 acres and Khasra No. 680, 685/2, total admeasuring 7.24 acres, situated at village Janjgiri, District Durg. An acquisition proceeding was initiated by the respondent authorities in the year 1995 for providing the same to the National Thermal Power and Grid. The award was passed by the respondent No. 2 on 18.06.1998 and the land of the petitioners were accordingly acquired and compensation was assessed to the tune of Rs. 4,76,428/- and 4,85,370/- respectively. Since the compensation assessed by the respondent No. 2 was on a lower side, the petitioners moved an application under the provisions of section 18 of the Act on 12.08.1998 and 18.08.1998 for its reference. However, the said applications were not referred by the respondent authorities to the Court for its proper determination. Thus, the petitioners were constrained to file a petition before this Court on 10.11.2003, being W.P. No. 3967/2003. The said petition was withdrawn on 16.02.2004 with liberty to make a representation before the authorities concerned. Pursuant to the order dated 16.02.2004, the petitioners submitted their representations on 09.01.2008, 19.05.2009, 23.09.2009, 25.10.2009 and 26.06.2010. On the basis of said letters, the Collector Durg, while referring to the letter dated 23.09.2009 and 25.10.2009, issued memo dated 07.10.2009 and 16.10.2009 to the respondent NO. 2 and directed him to submit his report, however, nothing has been done till date. Thus, this petition for the above-stated reliefs.

(3.) THE writ petition filed earlier, was withdrawn by the petitioners on the ground that they want to make a representation to the respondent authorities on16.02.2004, the petitioners comfortably took about four years and made representation only in the year 2008. Thus, it appears that the petitioners themselves were not interested in disposal of their reference applications. Even otherwise, a second writ petition for the similar reliefs as sought for in the earlier writ petition, is not maintainable.