SHIV KUMAR RAY Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Learned counsel for the parties are present.

(2.) This writ petition has been filed for the following reliefs:-

(3.) The learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the petitioners are claiming compensation in connection with the property which has been acquired for Railways. The learned counsel has further submitted that at one point of time the Jamabandi of the original petitioner was cancelled and the said order was subject matter of appeal and the Appellate Authority in Appeal case No. 5 of 2006 (Annexure-6) has specifically directed to restore the Jamabandi and has also directed for issuance of rent receipts. He submits that in spite of such order, the Circle Officer (Respondent No. 9) did not issue the rent receipts and therefore present writ petition has been filed. The learned counsel has submitted that at the various portion of the writ petition, the sale deed number has been mentioned as Sale deed No. 2346 dtd. 8/4/1958, but the correct sale deed is Sale Deed No. 2396 dtd. 8/4/1958. The learned counsel submits that due to inadvertence, the sale deed number was incorrectly mentioned in the writ petition, but from perusal of the various orders, it is apparent that the petitioners are claiming through sale deed No. 2396 dtd. 8/4/1958 and it may be recorded that the petitioners are not claiming through sale deed No. 2346 dtd. 8/4/1958.