High Court Of ChhattisgarhREVP/123/2016disposed off

M/S Sarguja Rail Coridor Private Limited v. Abdul Rashid

2016-12-02Hon'Ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal2 pages

NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR REVP No. 123 of 2016 M/s Sarguja Rail Coridor Private Limited Adani Group, Ketka Road, Behind Shyam Mandir, Surajpur, Revenue And Civil District- Surajpur, (Chhattisgarh), .........(Respondent No. 8). ---- Petitioner

Versus

1. Abdul Rashid S/o. Haji Abdul Siddique, Aged About 43 Years R/oBirra Road, Champa, P.O. & P.S.- Champa, Revenue & Civil DistrictJanjgir- Champa, (Chhattisgarh), ........(Petitioner).

2. State Of Chhattisgarh, Through The Secretary, Department Of Industries / Revenue, Mahanadi Bhawan, Naya Raipur, Revenue And Civil District- Raipur, (Chhattisgarh).

3. Collector, Sarguja, Revenue And Civil District- Sarguja, (Chhattisgarh).

4. Collector, Surajpur, Revenue And Civil District- Surajpur, (Chhattisgarh).

5. Land Acquisition Officer, Thermal Power Project, Premnagar / Bhaiyathan, Head Office Ambikapur, Revenue And Civil DistrictSarguja, (Chhattisgarh).

6. SDO (Revenue), Surajpur, Revenue And Civil District- Surajpur, (Chhattisgarh).

7. Tehsildar, Surajpur, Revenue And Civil District- Surajpur, (Chhattisgarh).

8. Executive Engineer (Civil), C.S.P.G.C.L., Bishrampur, Revenue And Civil District- Surajpur, (Chhattisgarh),.........(Respondents No. 1 To 7) ---- Respondents For Petitioners : Dr. N.K. Shukla, Senior Advocate with Smt. A. Sen Gupta, Advocate.

For Respondent No. 1. : Mr. Sarfaraj Khan, Advocate. For Respondents No. 2 to 8 : Mr. Garry Mukhopadhyaya, Dy. G.A. Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal Order On Board 02/12/2016 Heard.

(1) Learned Senior counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that this Court in its order under review dated 12.01.2016 passed in W.P. (S) No.60/2016 has issued direction for grant of employment to the original writ petitioner.

(2) I have heard learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner and perused the order impugned with utmost circumspection. (3) A careful perusal of the order under review would show that the Court his simply directed the respondents authorities to expedite the process of rehabilitation of the petitioner in accordance with the existing Rehabilitation Policy of the State Government, this Court has only issued direction for consideration of petitioner's case in accordance with law. (4) Accordingly, the review petition stands finally disposed of. However, the petitioner is at liberty to proceed in accordance with law. Sd/- (Sanjay K. Agrawal) Judge D/-