Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Chhattisgarh · body

2026 DAILYLAW 12951 (CHH)

MANMOHAN SINGH JANGDE v. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

WPC/842/2022 · 2026-04-26

Shri Amitendra Kishore Prasad

body2026

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

1 2026:CGHC:19457 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 842 of 2022 1 - Manmohan Singh Jangde S/o Shri Gowardhan Prasad Jangde, Aged About 48 Years R/o Jangdepara, Near The Limhi-Talab Village Borsi, Patwari Halka No. 03, Ra. Ni.Ma.Mulmula, P.S. And Tahsil Pamgarh And District Janjgir-Champa(C.G.) Pin Code 495662. Mb. 9926115512 2 - Premchand Jangde S/o Shri Gowardhan Prasad Jangde, Aged About 63 Years R/o Jangdepara, Near The Limhi-Talab Village Borsi, Patwari Halka No. 03, Ra.Ni.Ma.Mulmula, P.S. And Tahsil Pamgarh And District Janjgir- Champa (C.G.) Pin Code 495662 ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Revenue Department, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, District New Raipur (C.G.) 2 -Collector Janjgir-Champa, District Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) 3 - Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue) Pamgarh, Tahsil Pamgarh And District Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) 4 - Tahasildar Pamgarh, Tahsil Pamgarh District Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) 5 - Veer Singh Jangde, S/o Kriparam Jangde, Aged About 62 Years R/o Jangdepara, Near The Limhitalab Village Borsi, Patwari Halka No. 03, Ra.Ni.Ma.Mulmula, P.S. And Tahsil Pamgarh And District Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) Pin Code 495662 6 - Upendra Jangde S/o Ramnarayan Jangde, Aged About 36 Years R/o Jangdepara, Near The Limhitalab Village Borsi, Patwari Halka No. 03, Ra.Ni.Ma.Mulmula, P.S. And Tahsil Pamgarh And District Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) Pin Code 495662 ... Respondents 2 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- For the Petitioners : None. For the State : Mr. SS Coubey, GA. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Hon'ble Mr. Amitendra Kishore Prasad, Judge Order on Board 27.04.2026 1. On the last date of hearing, ie, 22.03.2025, when the case was called out for hearing no one appeared on behalf of the petitioners. 2. Today also, there is no representation on behalf of the petitioners even when the case is called out for hearing in the second round, therefore, this Court left with no other option except to dismiss this petition for want of prosecution. 3. Accordingly, the instant petition is dismissed for want of prosecution. CC as per rules. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge J.