^KSaESij,. iM i^naLfe>9t! "MT< E^ i "ii J. Shri Ram, son of Sagar Nishad, about 45 years, R/o viilage Bhendsar, Tehsil and District Durg (CG). Versus s 1. State of.Chhatttsgarh, {hrough {hs Secretary, Department of Fisheries, Govt. of Chhattisgarh, D.K. Bhavan, Ralpur {CQ). 2. The Additional Collector (Panchayat), Durg (C.G). The Gram Pachayat, viiiage - Bhendsar, through its Secretary, Tehsil su uisinci "y \ ,Uj. (Writ p< 'titiOE 4. Sangwari Swa-Sahayata Satnuh, village Bhendsar, Through its President, Pardeshi Ram Sahu, R/o v||stn?»Rh^Hf^^^r ni^t Hum iOOs 5. Smt. Kusum Nishad, President, Machhua S'A'a-Sahayata Samuh, village Bhendsar, District Durg (CG). :ic!e 226/227 ofthe Constitution of Sndia) Hon'bte Shri K. „'. : Shri Manoj Jaiswat, counset for the petitioner. Shri Bhaskar Payasi, Pane! Lavwer for the State. fpaes^^ oii thls 2''! d^y of J@iiu^fy.; 2009) vVith the of iearned counsel appeanng for the E the petition is heard final'y. 2) By this petition, the petitioner the following reliefs : irtis 07) Rfiiifif So Under the facts and ciroumstances, the petitioner most humbly that the Hon'ble Hiyh Court may most kindly be pSeased to a writ, order or i" the of mandamus cr of any other appropriate w<att ifffi—/•ilr^/vTin.. -""" ' " " — I.; .•.;'?-BaSs. measuriRg 1.210 hectare, (ii) Purana Taiab at Khasra No.775 measurinfl 3.020 hectare and (iii} To!a Tatab at Khasra No.872 measuring 2.300 hectare, of viliage Bhendsar, Dist. Dur( (CG), to the petitioner in the ends ofjustice and in case it is found by tne Honbie Hiflh Court that the respondent No.3 has a'ready ailotted the above 3 tanks to the respondent No.4 or anybody else, then fhe ,same may kindfy be quashed and any other a!t6rnatiye reiieffhought properjust and fit be iso granted to the petitioner." 3) This petition was filed by the petitioner before this Court on 23-2-2004. From fhe report submiffed by the Panchayat Inspector to the Deputy Director, it appears that as per the decision taken in the meeting of Gram Panchayat the ponds were aSIotted to the respondent No.4 Sangwari Swa-Sahayata Samuh for a period of five and formal order, aftsr execution of the agreement, was on 23-11-2002 i.e. bsfore one vear of filing of this petition. The petitioner has not challenged the sasd order. Since thsre is no chal'enge to the order whereby the disputed ponds have been stiotted to the respondsnt No.4, this petition is noS maintainabie. 4) In vlew of the foregoing, fhe petition is liable to be dismissed and is accordingly dismissed. 5) Consequentty, M.(W.).P.No.536/2004 disposed of. iowr' Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge .-.1-..—L.:_..