^ Petltloners Appiicants N0.411S of 1. Ganesh Kumar JagatramRa S/o Shri BanwariJal, sbout 65 years Non-applica.nts 2. Akhilesh Kumar S/o Shrl Ganesh Kumar Jagatramka, aged about 38 years Both R/o vilIage-Taraimal, Up-Tahssl- Tamnsr Distt.Raigarh At present Shyam TaikJes Road, Raigarh, Dlstt.Raigarh (C.Q.). 'v'ersus 1. Rama.kant Chatur^edi S/o not Rnown to ths petjtloner, R/o vi!Iage- Taralma!, Tahsll-Gharghods., Distt.Ratgarh (C.G.). 2. Nayab Tahsildar, Tamnar, Dlstt.Ralgarh (C.G.). Tahsisdar, Tamnar, Djstt.Raigsrh (C.G.). 4. Sub DlviSionai Officer (R), Gharghoda, Distt.Rslgarh (C.G.) 5. .Coliector, Ralgarh, Dlstt.Raigarh ^Vrit Petition under Artlcie 227 ofthe Constitutjon of india) K4r.Tv1anoj Kumar Slnha, counsel for the petitioners. Mr.Sumlt Jhanvvar, Panel la»/ysrfor respondents No.2 to 5/St3te. Hon'bEe iV1r. T.P. Sliarma, J.) (29-7-2011) 1. By thls petltion under Articie 227 of the Constjtution of tndia the petitioners have prayed fbr compSiance of the order datsd 10.5.1999 by the r'lajb-Tahsiidar, Tamnar, Distnct Ralgarh In Revenue Case No.lOA-70/98- 99. 2. I have heard learned counsei for the petitloners, the order impugned and other documents fjied on behaif ofthe petjtioners. •...I ^ -2- °-LJ 3. From perusal of the order impugned snd coples of other appilcatlons, 11 reveaEsthat the present petitloners are not'serious about compitaRce ofthe order and they have fiied some appijcatiQn oniy jn the year 200^. 4. Consldering. the reiuctancy of the petjtloners, I do not fsnd any grouRd for invoking supervlsory jurisd.ictlon. Consequentiy, the wrlt petltion belng devold of merit is iiable to be dismisssd and It js hereby dism.lssed. No order a.s to costs. Sd/- T.P. Sharma Judge