HIGH COURT OE CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR WritPetition fC) No. 5945 of 2008 Petitioners 1. Mahendra Kuiaar Venita, S/o Late Shri Jagmohaa Lal Venna, agedaboTit36years, R/o Village Khadwa, P.0. Uparkhara, TahsU Abhanpur, DistrictRaipur(C.G.) 2. Refchram, S/o SIlriPatiram Yadav, aged about 36 years, R/o Vfflage Khadwa, P.0. Uparkhara, Tahsil Abhaupur, District Raipur (C.G.) 3. Hitesh Kumar, S/o Shri Harichand, aged about 25 years, R/o Vfllage Khadwa, P.0. Uparkbara, Tahsil Abhaapur, District Raipur (C.G.) 4, Ranaji Verma, S/o Shri Goverdhan. Verina, aged about 28 years, R/oVSlay Khadwa, P.0. Uparkhara, TaUsU Abhaapur, District Rai.pur(G.G:.) 5. DiUp Thomas, S/o Shri M. Thomas, aged about 40 years, R/o ViUage Khadwa, P.0. UparKhara, TatisU Atolianpur, District Raipur (C.G.) 6. Shastu Kumar Verma, S/o Shri Gokul Verma, aged about 35 years R/o ViUage Khadwa, P.0. Uparkhara, Talisil Alabanpur, District Raipur (C.G.) Respondents Versus 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. State of CMiatdsgarh, fhrouglt llie Secretary, Departinent of Housing and Enviroiunent DKS Bhawaa, Mantralaya, Raipur (C.G.) CoUector, Raipur (C.G.) Naya Raipur Development Authorily, through the Chairman, ncar Mahanadi Dwar ofMantralaya, Raipur (C.G.) Laud Acquisition Officer/Cbief Executive OflBcer, Naya Raipur Development Authority, Raipur (C.G.) Director, Town and C&un.tiy Planiung, Goverrunentof Chhatdsgarh, Raipur(C.G.) a Jft WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA (SB: Hon'bleShri Satish K. AgiuhotnJ.) None for fhe petiti.on.er. Shri Alok Bakshi, Govt, Advocate for the respondeuts No. 1, 2 aad 5; •1> 3. 4. 5. Bukur o ORDERforaM ( Passed on this 20th day ofJuly, 2009) The matter is caUed for heariug twice. On the first round Shri VartLa Shanna, learaed counsel appeared for the petitioners and prayed foradjouruiaentofthe inatter forfoiir weeks. Haviag regard to fhe facts situation ofthecase that this writ petition was called for hearmg on 22,10.2008, 24.10.2008 aud 6.11.2008 aad on atl the ocGasions learaed counsel appearing for the petitioners soughtfor and was granted time to argue the matter, the prayer for adjoununent is rejected aad the matter is passed over to enable learued counsel to argue fhe iiiatterin the secoud round. In the seeond rouad, noae appears aor aay representetion is made onbehalfofftte pefitioners. The petitioners may not be interested in prosecuting the inatter. In view offtie foregoing, the petition is disniissed for want of prosecution. SatishK.Agnihotri Judge ir •f