Ashwani Bandhe v. The Union Of India And ORS

NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR Writ Petition (C) No.373 of 2014 Ashwani Bandhe S/o Late Mohanlal Bandhe Aged About 38 Years R/o Village Baraunda, Post Office Mana Camp, Tahsil Arang, P.S. Mana, Civil And Revenue District Raipur C.G.

---- Petitioner

Versus

1.

The Union Of India through The Secretary, Ministry Of Defence, New Delhi.

2.

The Union Of India Through The Secretary/director, Ministry Of Civil Aviation, New Delhi.

3.

The Union Of India, Through The Secretary, Ministry Of Housing And Urban Property Alleviation (M/o Hoopa), Room No. 125-C, Nirman Bhawan, Maulana Azad Road, New Delhi 110011. 4.

The Secretary/Managing Director, The Airport Authority Of India, A.A.I. Building, Safdarganj Airport, New Delhi. 5.

The Director/Manager, Airport Authority, Civil Airport, Raipur (Vivekanand Mana Airport Raipur), Distt. Raipur C.G. 6.

The State Of C.G., Through The Secretary, Department Of Revenue Mahanadi Bhawan, Naya Raipur, Distt. Raipur C.G. 7.

The Land Acquisition Officer, Raipur, Distt. Raipur C.G. 8.

The Collector Raipur, Distt. Raipur C.G.

9.

The Commissioner, Raipur Division, Raipur C.G. --- Respondents For Petitioner : Mr. Malay Kumar Bhaduri, Advocate For State/Respondents : Mr. Dhiraj Wankhede, Govt. Advocate and Mr. Rajesh Kumar Keshwarwani, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal Order On Board 24/07/2017 (1) Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner may be permitted to make representation to the State

Government for redressal of his grievances.

(2) The prayer appears to be fair and reasonable. (3) Be that as it may, the petitioner is permitted to make representation to the State Government for redressal of his grievances. If such representation is filed by the petitioner before the State of Chhattisgarh and in turn, the State of Chhattisgarh shall consider and decide the same in accordance with law preferably within a period of ten weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order. (4) It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case and the respondent No.6 may decide the representation of the petitioner in accordance with law. (5) With the aforesaid observation, the writ petition stands finally disposed of.

Sd/- (Sanjay K. Agrawal) Judge L/-