PETITIONER APPLICANTS HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGMH AT BILASPUR WRIT PETITION (227‘! No. 5 155 0f2008 Anil Shrivastava S/o Late Hmday Narayan Shrivastavm Aged 40 years. Sunil Shrivastava S10 Late Hruday Namyan Shrivastava, Aged 36 years Ram Lakhan Pandey S/o Late Mathura Prasad Pandey, Aged about 7O years. All above R/o North Ringh Road, Kedarpur, Ambikapur, District Surguja (CG) Narayan Das Aged about 45 years, S/O Late Shri Dilbodh Panika R/o Near Pratappur Barrier, Fumiur Dihari, Nagar 8c Tah. Ambikapur, Dim. Surguja (C.G.) VERSUS .State of Chhattisgarh, through: Coiiéctor, Surguja, Ambikapur (C.G.) Vijaynath Dubey S/o Late Shivdhari Dubey. Prabhunath Dubey S/o Late Shivdhari Dubey. Ramharsh Dubey S/o Late Shivdhari Dubey. Ramanuj Dubey S/o Late Shivdhari Dubey, Nagendranath Dubey S/o Late Shivdhari Dubey. Dhirendranath Dubey S/o Late Timmath Dubey. Alok Dubey S/o Late Tirathnaxh Dube'y. All above R/o Near Pratappur,‘ Bmier Fundur Dihati‘ Nagar & Tahsil Ambikapur, District Surguja (C.G.) Smt. Geeta Dubey W10 Late 9. Ravindmnam Dubey. 10.Abhishek Dubey S/o Late Ravindranath Dubey. 11.Naveen Dubey, S/o Late Ravindranath Dubey. All above R/o Bramnanpara, Ambikapur, District Surguja (CG) 12.Sudisht Narayan ’Pathak, S/o Late Rajdev 1’athak, R/o Near Pi'atappur Banier, Fundurdihaxi, Nagar & Tahsil Ambikapur, District Surguja (C.G.) WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA RESPONDENTS NON—APPLICANTS SB: Hon’ble Shri Satish K. Agnihotri, J. Present: Shri Vaibhav A. Goverdhan, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri Vinay Harit, Deputy Advocate General for the State. Shri Sunil Tripathi, Advocate for the respondent No. 2 and 5. ORAL ORDER (Passed on 15f“ day of September, 2008) Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that while passing the impugned order dated 11.08.2008 (Annexure P/l), the Board of Revenue, Bilaspur: has not considered the application tiled under order 22 Rule 9 ofthe Code ofCivil Procedure. 2. Be that as it may, without going into the merits ofthe case, the Board of Revenue, Bilaspur, is directed to consider the above application before passing the final order in the pending,,case i.e. Revenue Case No. Riv.No.M/16/R/A—12/66/07 (Hridya Narayan & Others. v. Vijaynath & 0thers).All the parties appearing may be granted opportunity to put forward their case before passing the order on this application. 3. In View ofthe above, the petition stands disposed of. No order asto costs. Consequently, LA. No. 1, application for grant of ad-interim writ, also . / l .Satish K.Agnihotri Sdl— ' Judge I stands disposed of. x m