Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Chhattisgarh · body

2025 DAILYLAW 55181 (CHH)

Ghurau v. South Eastern Coal Fileds Ltd.

WPC/3449/2021 · 2025-11-24

Shri Sanjay Agrawal

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

1 2025:CGHC:57264 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 3449 of 2021 1. Ghurau S/o Nanhiram, Aged About 46 Years, By Caste Ganda (Ann. A-1 wrongly mentioned Ghuruoo) 2. Pardeshiram S/o Remsai, Aged About 50 Years, By Caste Ganda, 3. Shanti Bai S/o Shri Hariram Ganda, Aged About 30 Years, By Caste Ganda (Ann. A-1 wrongly mentioned Mahettar Gond) 4. Kheekdas S/o Dayaram, Aged About 56 Years, By Caste Panika, 5. Premlal S/o Jaiprasad, Aged About 45 Years, By Caste Lohar, (Ann. A-1 wrongly mentioned Pemlata) 6. Deepram S/o Anandram, Aged About 65 Years, By Caste Nai, 7. Adalat S/o Prem Singh, Aged About 50 Years, By Caste Ganda, 8. Ramprasad S/o Ramkhilawan, Aged About 65 Years, By Caste Yadav, 9. Chandrakali D/o Ghasiram, Aged About 60 Years, By Caste Yadav, All Petitioners Are R/o Village Beltikri, Tehsil Katghora, Civil And Revenue District Korba (C.G.). ... Petitioners versus 1. South Eastern Coal Fields Ltd. Through The Chief General Manager, Gevra Project, Korba District Korba (C.G.). 2. State Of Chhattisgarh, Through The Secretary, Revenue Mantralaya, Indira Bhavan New, Raipur (C.G.). 3. Commissioner, Bilaspur Division, Civil Lines Bilaspur (C.G.). 4. Board Of Revenue, Bilaspur (C.G.). 5. Collector, Korba, District Korba (C.G.). CHANDRAKANT DEWANGAN Digitally signed by CHANDRAKANT DEWANGAN Date: 2025.11.25 17:03:44 +0530 2 6. Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue), Katghora, District Korba (C.G.). 7. Tehsildar, Uptehsil Dipka, Tehsil Katghora, District Korba (C.G.). ... Respondents For Petitioners : None. For Respondents No.2, 3, 5 to 7 : Mr. Arpit Agrawal, P.L. Hon'ble Shri Justic e Sanjay S. Agrawal Order on Board 25/11/2025 1) The matter was passed over once in absence of any representation on behalf of the petitioners. Even in the second call none appeared, nor any representation is made on behalf of the petitioners. 2) Under these circumstances, this Court is left with no other option, except to dismiss the petition for want of prosecution. 3) Accordingly, the petition is dismissed for want of prosecution. -Sd/- (Sanjay S. Agrawal) Judge Chandrakant