1 2026:CGHC:19050 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WP227 No. 657 of 2022 1 - Bishal S/o Late Churaman Lodhi Aged About 62 Years R/o Village Deurkona, Tehsil Bori, District : Durg, Chhattisgarh 2 - Goverdhan S/o Late Churaman Lodhi Aged About 57 Years R/o Village Deurkona, Tehsil Bori, District : Durg, Chhattisgarh 3 - Hincharam (Died) Through Lrs Nill 3.1 - Shanti Bai W/o Hincharam Aged About 51 Years R/o Village Deurkona, Tehsil Bori, District : Durg, Chhattisgarh 3.2 - Jeevan Patel S/o Late Hincharam Aged About 31 Years R/o Village Deurkona, Tehsil Bori, District : Durg, Chhattisgarh 3.3 - Kamta Patel S/o Late Hincharam Aged About 28 Years R/o Village Deurkona, Tehsil Bori, District : Durg, Chhattisgarh 3.4 - Virendra Patel S/o Late Hincharam Aged About 25 Years R/o Village Deurkona, Tehsil Bori, District : Durg, Chhattisgarh 4 - Kalaram S/o Late Churaman Lodhi Aged About 52 Years R/o Village Deurkona, Tehsil Bori, District : Durg, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - Kejuram S/o Kawal Singh Lodhi Aged About 90 Years R/o Village Shivkokdi Deurkonha, Post Chicha, Tehsil Dhamdha, District : Durg, Chhattisgarh 2 - Durgaram S/o Kejuram Lodhi Aged About 64 Years R/o Village Shivkokdi Deurkonha, Post Chicha, Tehsil Dhamdha, District : Durg, Chhattisgarh 3 - Smt. Godawari W/o Sukhnandan Lodhi Aged About 62 Years R/o Village Suwartala, Post Shikaribeeja, Tehsil Saaj, District : Bemetara, Chhattisgarh 4 - Dularibai W/o Budhram Lodhi Aged About 60 Years R/o Village Digitally signed by ALOK SHARMA Date: 2026.04.25 11:10:12 +0530 2 Takam, Post Dharsiwa, Tehsil Berla, District : Bemetara, Chhattisgarh 5 - Sushila Devi W/o Bhagwan Singh Lodhi Aged About 58 Years R/o Village Takam, Post Dharsiwa, Tehsil Berla, District : Bemetara, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) :None For Respondent No. 2 to 5. :Mr. Jitendra Nath Nande, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, J. Order on Board 24/04/2026 1. None appeared for the petitioners despite repeated calls. 2. None appeared for the other respondents. 3. It transpires from the order sheet that on 06.04.2026, when the matter was called for hearing, none appeared for the petitioners. Today as well, when the matter was repeatedly called, no one appeared on behalf of the petitioners, nor was any representation made. 4. In view of the above, the present writ petition is dismissed for want of prosecution. 5. Interim relief, if any, stands vacated. Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) Judge Alok