Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 1033 (MP)

Sheetal Prasad Vishwakarma v. State of M. P.

2012-10-09

U.C.MAHESHWARI

body2012
Judgment U.C. Maheshwari, J.;- 1. Heard on the question of admission. The petitioner has preferred this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuing the appropriate writ in the nature of Mandamus directing the authorities of the respondents to pay him adequate compensation of his land which has been acquired by the respondents under the provision of Land Acquisition Act. In addition to it, the prayer for appropriate direction to the respondents to extend him the benefit of Resettlement and Rehabilitation Policy of 2007, is also made. Besides this, an additional prayer restraining the respondents authorities from threatening and use of muscle power on the petitioner and his family till the compensation amount and benefit of Resettlement and Rehabilitation Policy of 2007, is not made to him. 2. In the course of arguments on admission after examining the elaborate submissions, petitioner's counsel has made his limited prayer for extending the liberty to the petitioner to file his fresh elaborate representation besides the representation Annexure-P-6 in the Office of the respondents authorities with a further prayer for appropriate direction to such authorities that on filing such representation, the same be considered and decided by the authorities with a speaking order on some early date within time bound schedule. 3. State counsel did not have any objection in disposing of the petition in the light the submissions of the petitioner's counsel. 4. In view of the aforesaid, instead to admit or issuing any notice to the other side, this petition is hereby disposed of by extending a liberty to the petitioner to file his fresh elaborate representation with respect of the dispute raised in this petition in the Office of respondents along with the certified copy of this order and the copy of the petition with annexures within 15 days. Pursuant to it, such authorities are directed that on filing such representation within the prescribed period, then the same shall be considered and decided with speaking order under intimation to the petitioner within further 90 days. The respondents authorities are further directed to decide the representation of the petitioner in the impartial manner and without creating any hindrance or pressure on the petitioner or any member of his family. 5. Petition is disposed of as indicated above. C.C. as per rules.