w of gNwyHE sTATE ADMIJ§§RATIVEgrR§UmAL z JABALPUR 0.12.. 8 ‘3 O APPLiEi-‘N ‘I' u” \ $3“ gz3 Ba&eo Prasarj Sah‘ Sx’b.T}imqel'Rgm Sahn WO Villags$ Mokhli, M‘- l " Di st rict RAJNANDGAGN VS. EEsPoxg’nmT51 1) stat o£ 1:,?“ through {Secretary Depariment .of Ravenuei Gcvt. Of Ma Gh ya P aga {3e sh ¢ BHO'r‘AL ) CommsiQmer Boami o£ Lanai Revenue, Macha Praa‘esh; Bywlior 2 is ; y 3) Sett lemen t O fficer RG ‘ Erxm 01r- @zxinéwmcmmq m I?erticu1:ars og the oréer against whch Fliis agslication is maée s w@ ra) V g e 4 DU mm WPwwm 2005’ mm (Wu) none appealed for the pe ”donexis), circumstances, this Court ha the petin‘on for want of prosecu tion. Accordingly, the petition is dismissed for want of prosecuu'on. therefore, in these no other option but to dismiss Sdl- Pritinker Diwaker Judge m ETm am was!m mmmm WmW W WK é? aimm SB : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRITINKER DIWAKER 05.10.2010 None for the petitioner (SI. Even after the matter as called in the second mund,