1 2026:CGHC:20271 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 807 of 2022 1 - Jeevan Lal S/o Late Ravi Shankar, Aged About 58 Years R/o Village Darripali, Patwari Halka No. 50 Tahsil Saraipali, District : Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh 2 - Jodhilal, S/o Late Ravi Shankar, Aged About 55 Years R/o Village Darripali, Patwari Halka No. 50, Tahsil Saraipali, District : Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh 3 - Smt. Ramvati, D/o Late Ravi Shankar, Aged About 50 Years R/o Village Darripali, Patwari Halka No. 50, Tahsil Saraipali, District Mahasamund Chhattisgarh. Present Address- W/o Pitamber Patel, R/o Village Bhadarpali, Post Tushgaon, Tahsil Saraipali, District : Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh 4 - Ahilya, D/o Late Ravi Shankar, Aged About 45 Years R/o Village Darripali, Patwari Halka No. 50, Tahsil Saraipali, District Mahasamund Chhattisgarh. Present Address- W/o Balmukund, R/o Village Kedua, Post Kedua, Tahsil Saraipali, District : Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh YOGESH TIWARI Digitally signed by YOGESH TIWARI Date: 2026.05.01 10:36:12 +0530 2 5 - Wasmoti, Wd/o Lare Ravi Shankar, Aged About 70 Years R/o Village Darripali, Patwari Halka No. 50, Tahsil Saraipali, District : Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioners versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Collector, District : Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh 2 - Anand Kumar, S/o Gajadhar, R/o Village Kailenda, Patwari Halka No. 50, Tahsil Saraipali, District : Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh 3 - Meghnath, S/o Gajadhar, R/o Village Kailenda, Patwari Halka No. 50, Tahsil Saraipali, District : Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh 4 - Bhim S/o Gajadhar, R/o Village Kailenda, Patwari Halka No. 50, Tahsil Saraipali, District : Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh ... Respondents (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) For Petitioners : None For State/Respondent No.1 : Dr. Arham Siddiqui, Panel Lawyer Hon’ble Shri Amitendra Kishore Prasad, Judge Order on Board 30.04.2026 1. None appears nor is any representation made on behalf of the petitioners to press this petition even in two rounds. 2. Dr. Arham Siddiqui, learned Panel Lawyer, appearing for the State/respondent No.1, is present. 3. Today, when the case is called, learned counsel for the petitioners is not present nor any representation made on behalf of the 3 petitioners to press this petition on repeated calls and it appears that the petitioners have lost interest in pursuing the matter, as such this Court has left with no other option, but to dismiss the writ petition for want of prosecution. 4. Accordingly, the present writ petition is dismissed for want of prosecution. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Yogesh