1 (WPC No. 1873 of 2024) 2025:CGHC:8198 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 1873 of 2024 1 - Poonam Shukla W/o Shri Mithlesh Shukla Aged About 51 Years R/o 27 Kholi Nand Kishor Vihar, Tahsil And District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh --- Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary Revenue And Disaster Management Department Mantralaya Mahanadi Bhavan Atal Nagar Naya Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - Collector District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh 3 - Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue), Bilaspur District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh 4 - Tahsildar, Bilaspur District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh 5 - Patwari, Patwari Halka No. 35 Village Mangla, Tahsil And District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh 6 - Atul Vaishnaw Posted As Tahsildar Bilaspur, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh 7 - Vijay Kumar Khosle Posted As Patwari, Patwari Halka No. 35, Village Mangla, Tahsil And District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh 8 - Arti Singh W/o Arun Singh Thakur Aged About 54 Years R/o Kalika Nagar, Tifra District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh 9 - Jay Prakash Agrawal S/o Shri B.N. Agrawal Aged About 62 Years R/o Minocha Colony Beside Bajpai Castle, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh ADITI DIWAN KAIWART Digitally signed by ADITI DIWAN KAIWART Date: 2025.02.22 11:54:52 +0530 2 (WPC No. 1873 of 2024) 10 - Rakesh Minocha S/o Shri Satish Minocha Aged About 54 Years R/o Narmada Nagar, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh --- Respondent(s) (Cause-title taken from the Case Information System) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- For Petitioner :- Mr. Aniket Verma, Advocate For State :- Mr. Sharad Mishra, Panel Lawyer For Respondent No.9:- Mr. Shobhit Koshta, Advocate ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- SB- Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal Order On Board 17.02.2025 1. At the very outset, learned counsel for respondent No.9 submits that the original proceedings initiated under Section 250 of Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code before the Tahsildar, Bilaspur has been withdrawn vide order dated 04.02.2025 and, therefore, no cause of action survives for consideration. 2. On which, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he may be permitted to withdraw the instant writ petition. 3. Accordingly, the instant writ petition is dismissed as withdrawn, in view of the subsequent events. Sd/- (Sanjay K. Agrawal) Judge @d!t!