1 HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR SA No. 227 of 2014 1 - Pahari Ram S/o Hariram Gond Aged About 48 Years R/o Hedaspur, Post- Kodwabani, Tah. Mungeli, Distt. Bilaspur C.G., Chhattisgarh ... appellant(s) versus 1 - Udasiya Bai And Ors. D/o Jhagarram Gond Aged About 73 Years R/o Hedaspur, Post- Kodwabani, Tah. Mungeli, Distt. Bilaspur C.G., Chhattisgarh 2 - Kumari Bai W/o Ramu Gond Aged About 43 Years R/o Birgaon, Post- Birgaon, Tah. Takhatpur, Distt. Bilaspur C.G., District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh 3 - Shanti Bai W/o Awadhram Aged About 63 Years R/o Khamartari, Tah. And Distt. Raipur C.G., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 4 - Chhediram S/o Jhadiram Gond Aged About 38 Years R/o Hedaspur, Post- Kodwabani, Tah. Mungeli, Distt. Bilaspur C.G., District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh 5 - Lalji S/o Jhadiram Gond Aged About 31 Years R/o Hedaspur, Post- Kodwabani, Tah. Mungeli, Distt. Bilaspur C.G., District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh 6 - Santosh S/o Jhadiram Gond Aged About 35 Years R/o Hedaspur, Post- Kodwabani, Tah. Mungeli, Distt. Bilaspur C.G., District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh 7 - Kunti Bai W/o Bedram Gond Aged About 58 Years R/o Hedaspur, Post- SAGRIKA AGRAWAL Digitally signed by SAGRIKA AGRAWAL Date: 2025.12.17 11:39:36 +0530 2 Junapara, Tah. Lormi, Distt. Bilaspur C.G., District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh 8 - Pancho Bai W/o Chaitram Gond Aged About 44 Years R/o Ghtholi, Chilfi, Tah. Pandariya, Distt. Kabirdham C.G., District : Kawardha (Kabirdham), Chhattisgarh 9 - State Of Chhattisgarh W/o Thru- Collector, Bilaspur, Distt. Bilaspur C.G., District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) Order on Board 16/12/2025 sagrika Mr. Sanjay Patel, learned counsel for the appellant. Mr. H. V. Sharma, learned counsel for the Respondent No. 2 and 3. Mr. R. L. Rajak, learned counsel for the Respondent No. 4 to 8. Mr. Aman Tamboli, Panel Lawyer for the State. Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the appellant is not cooperating and despite having communication, he is not turning up for filing the necessary applications and presently, he is having no instruction from the appellant. In view of the submission made by learned counsel for the appellant that he is having no instruction from the appellant side and there is no representation made by the appellant in the present appeal, the appeal is dismissed for want of prosecution. Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal ) Judge