IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WRIT PETITION (ART.227) NO. ”)1% OF W Q?“ PETITIONERS: Bhoop Singh,S/o Kehari Mahalodhi, aged about 65 years, Derha ,S/o Bhoop Singh aged about 41 years, Khem Singh, S/o Bhoop Singh, aged 39 years, TAIIthree residents of Village Pirchatola, P.H. N01 46, P. O. Jangal Surajpura, Tahsil Izohara District Kawardha (CG) 1. VERSUS RESPONDENTS 1. Sukwaro Bai, wife of Phool Singh Gaur, aged About 60 years, HulkOQ, son of Phool Singh Gaur, aged about 42 years, Manoharla1,son of Phool Singh Gaur, aged about 37 years, ‘ 6 Respondent 185g r/o Village Pirchatola; RH. N0. 46, P. O. Jangal Surajpura, Tahsil Lohara District Kawardha (CG) Respondent 3 resident of Village Kamanbod, P.O. Kolari, Tahsil Sahaspur Lohara, Dist.Kawardha. Maniram, son of Mangal Gaur, aged 4O years, R/o Near Shiv Mandir, Shantinagar (Jawahar Nagar), Durg, District Durg (Chhattisgarh) 5. State of Chhattisgarh Through the Collector, Kawardha (Chhattisgarhf 27 OF THE E OF WRIT IN UITABLE WRIT S, ORDER OR WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 2 CONSTITUTION OF INDIA FOR ISSUANC NATURE OF MANDAMUS AND OTHER S OR WRITS, DIRECTION OR DIRECTION ORDERS: H3GH COURT O? (SHHATTSGARH : BiiJxSPUR WRsT gamers (227x PR Noggxa 3F wpéwa 2w HH‘b/H §9ETiTiONERS Bhoop Singh 8: Qthers Versus c ' RESPONDENTS Sukwaro Bai & Others ‘ (Writ Petition under Articie 227 of the Constitution of India) Stngte Bench : Hon’bie Shri Prashant Kumar Mishra, J. Present :« Shri AShish $hr§vastava with Shri D. Patei, Advocate for the petitioners. Ms. Sangeeta Mishra, Pane! Lawyer for the State. .‘ - . ORDER (ORAL) (Passed ca this 15m déy of February, 201 1) ‘Lee‘rned counsei appearing for the petitioners submits that the petitioners want to Withdraw this petition with tiberty to ttie an eppiécation for restoration of the proceedings before the Additionai Commissioner, Raipur Division, Reipur. which was dismissed for want of prosecution on 23-094 998. On such application being fiied, the Additionai Commissioner shaii consider and decide the case of the petitioners keeping in View the . i oonsistent efforts of the petitioners before the State Government by filing revision. (3 With the above-stated obsetvations the writ petitiion is dismissed as withdrawn. Sdl- Prashant Kumar Mishra ’i * Judge