Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Chhattisgarh · body

2026 DAILYLAW 33951 (CHH)

YADRAM BANJARE v. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

WPC/2628/2022 · 2026-08-30

Shri Amitendra Kishore Prasad

body2026

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

1 CGHC010195152022 2026:CGHC:38485 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 2628 of 2022 Yadram Banjare S/o Anandram Banjare, Aged About 61 Years Caste Satnami, Occupation Cultivator, R/o Village Mahuldih, Tahsil Bilaigarh And District Sarangarh-Bilaigarh (Chhattisgarh) ... Petitioner versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Revenue And Disaster Management Department, Secretariat, Mahanadi Bhawan, Nawa Raipur, Atal Nagar, District Raipur (Chhattisgarh) Pin 492002 2 - Collector, District Sarangarh-Bilaigarh (Chhattisgarh) 3 - Sub Divisional Officer (Rev) And Land Acquisition Officer, Tahsil Bilaigarh, District : Sarangarh-Bilaigarh, Chhattisgarh 4 - Executive Engineer, Water Resources Construction Division Kasdol, District : Balodabazar-Bhathapara, Chhattisgarh ... Respondents (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner : None For State/Respondents : Mr. S.S. Choubey, Govt. Advocate YOGESH TIWARI Digitally signed by YOGESH TIWARI Date: 2026.08.31 17:26:02 +0530 2 Hon’ble Shri Amitendra Kishore Prasad, Judge Order on Board 31.08.2026 1. Today, when the case was called for hearing, despite repeated calls, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner did not appear and no representation was made on behalf of the petitioner to press the present writ petition. There was also no request for adjournment nor any explanation offered for such non- appearance. In the aforesaid circumstances, it appears that the petitioner has lost interest in prosecuting the matter. 2. Mr. S.S. Choubey, learned Government Advocate, appearing for the State/respondents, is present. 3. In view of the continued non-appearance on behalf of the petitioner and the apparent lack of interest in pursuing the writ petition, this Court is left with no other option but to dismiss the writ petition for want of prosecution. 4. Accordingly, the writ petition stands dismissed for want of prosecution. No order as to costs. Sd/- /- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Yogesh