IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BIL W.P. N&33572003 1) J” Shekh Nizamuddin f S/o. Shekh Karimuddin Aged about 26 years R/o. Salim Motor Garage, JailrRoad, Chatapara Bilapur (CG). Khalil Ahmed Khan s/o Late Abdul Aziz Khan, Age about 44 years R/o. Akbari Masjid, Juni Line, Bilaspur (C.G.) ”w “wk, l \, VERSUS \ 1) State of Chhattisgarh, through the Secretary, Department of Tourism, Culture, Religious Trust and Endowments, D.K.S. Building Mantralaya, Raipur (Chhattisgarh) 2) Collector (Nazul), Bilaspur District-Bilaspur(Chhattisgarh) 3) Nazul Ofiicer, Bilaspur Collectorate, Bilaspur(Chhattisgarh) PETITIONERS / Joint DireCtor, Town & Country Planning, Bilaspur, Dist—BHaspur (Chhattisgarh) 5) ' Sub Registrar(Registration) Composite Building, Opposite CoHectorate, Bilaspur, Dist-Bilaspur (Chhattisgarh) Abdul Mannan Khan, agebout 35 year, S/o. AbduHa Khan Resident of Village Sargaon Tehsil Mun‘geH, District-BHaSpur(Chattisgarh) Ku. Rana Parvee aged about 37 rs D/o. Abdulla Khan, Resident of Juni Line, Biiaspur (Chhaiiisgarh) Rahul Bajpai, aged bout 44 years S/o. Rohini Kumar Bajpai Resident o idgah Chowk, Biiaspur Tehsil and District-Bilaspur (Chattisgarh) Ratique Ahmed Khan aged about 70 years S/o Masood Khan Presently residing in fiat no. 113 Utkarsh Nirman Mangalwari Bazar Sadar Nagpur(M.S.) Local Resident ofJuni Line Biiaspur O Ashok Kumat Tiwari, Nazul mcer Bilasur, istrict—BHaspur (Chhattisgafh) dé s p D h n, yea _ h Tehsil and District-Bilaspur (Chhattisgarh) E WRIT PETITION UDNER ARTICLE 226/227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR WRIT PETITION NO. 2395 OF 2003 PETlTlONERS Shekh Nizamuddin & Another Versus RESPONDENTS State of Chhattisgarh & Others (Writ Petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of india) Single Bench : Hon‘bie Shri Satish K. Agnihotri, J. Present :— Shri Ashok Patil, Advocate for the petitioners. Shri N.N. Roy, Panel Lawyer forthe State. ORDER (ORAL) (Passed on this 7th day of July, 2010) 1) Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that despite repeated communications to the petitioners, he has not received any instruction, thus learned counsel pieads no instructions. The petitioners may not be interested in pursuing the matter. 2) Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed for want of i . prosecution. Consequently, M.(W.).P.No.2200 of 2003 stands disposed of. ““>~"——r , Satish K. Sd/ Agitxmom J‘ Judge ll r Gowrii: l l it