YW'-t •.--.J^-.WT-'.- -••^•.^^•^ IH THE HIGH^ eQ'UKT OE GHIUQTISG&RH AT BIIASPUR. r.p.No. ^5^/2001 PBTmOHEB Abdal Haml.d soia ®fMd. Uaar Kfaan aged about 65 years, r/e.ambiKapur City.p^rra riand, Bistt'. Sarguja, C.G. V E R S U S RESPeNBEHTS NBS V: ;v: ^o' A cf'\ k-^^.T' ^ .^-^•-'^••"" CV- 1. State of Ghhattisgarh throagh fefae secretary, Ministry of &aw, Government of cadiat-tisgarh., Raipar. 2. Hd. Allm s/®Md. Saddlqae, aged about 4-4 years, ^ ^. Md. Hallai S/Q Md.. Saddj.qae, aged aboat 42 years. 4. »d. Hakim s/o Hd. Sadd.i.qae, aged aboat 40 years, i» Md. Kalla ,s/© Md. Saddique, aged about 40 years, •» . . • "' . ' . . .. . ^6. Riazuddln s/o Md. Salla, aged about 27 years, 7. Salraj s/o Hd. Sal.in, aged aboiut 21 years, 8. Mairaj s/oHd. Saljjn, i agsd about 19 years. 9. Hst» Narjahan W/o Bd. Sallm. aged about52 years. ^O. Hst. Jalnab Bibl W/o Siddique, aged about 69 years 11. Mst. Hajma D/o Md. .Salin. aged about 29 years. 12. Mst» NajMeeiaS/o MS. Saa.la, aged about 25 years. conted..2 i 13. Hfajreen D/o Hd. Salim, . aged about. 23 years.. ,,-14,. GadlaD/oMd. Sallm, aged aboat 19 years. t 15. 'Hst. Hi.a-al.sha Bj.bl, B/o , Bd. Saiddique, aged about 38yrs 16. Hst. Kuraishi Blbl ©/o Md. Sa.i.ddique, aged about 2 8 years » ^ '• ' •" •. • 17. Mstf. Myestia Blbi, B/o Md. Salddlque, aged aboat 26 years. Ml respondents no. 2 to ^.7 residents of Mohalla Paradand, Aablkapar eity, Dlstt. siirguja. • a.s. • ! . ^ . WRIT 'EETmON I3NBER ARTICtiE 226/227 OF THE COKlffCiTDTIOH OF IHDZ&.— 1 !iti!-l;l Bll ^^^^a^"!^^.^,^,^^,.;,^^^^ 'a-HC-22 a-'psi sn t&SS! 1 ?ST!TE|;-gftTi •s^ 'S^ ^iWvPf, t?fll<-l*is, [•sit-ll'Hy sr-fs tJ^p^Q-^3^0 arr^'i'^nwu'fei ^TClf-T'fR'qTtCT ^ TS^f'rf3TE?T( ^i-3TFOT .3TCST 12-07-200a Shri Snnfl Siaha, leamed Shri Ranbir Siagh, Govt. ^ouasel for the petitioner. Adv. for the State/respondeat No.l. Mrs. Indira Tripathi, learated couasel for respondent Nos. 2 to 17. Heaid. The dispute in fhis wri^ petition relates to a house atongwith Badi situated over 0.(^7 deciinals of laad, which 1s a portion of Khasra No.2488 of I^arradaad MohaBa, Ambikapur. There was a civil rcvision bet^recn thc partics in which fhe pctitioncr hcreiti was not succc^sful. Hc lost bcfore fhc High Court of Madhya Pradesh. The inatter weut up to the Supreiae Coiurt, where the petitioner also 1pat. Thereafler a petition under Ardcle 32 of fhe Constitution of India was filed before fhe Apex Court and whcn fhe matter caicje up fiir hearing, the petitioner wifh.drew the said writ petition. iThe order discloses fhat he had inade a stateinent fhat he wouMj inove a writ petition before the H^h Court. His stateiaent was r^corded in fhe order of thc Apcx >1*1-:^^' XI-HC-22 ^5^ ^WMv., ^lWld, iddl^y ii^^i -^; [I'n'SiT^ ^W^lfi^T •> '??•<)• £ ~t~ r -Srf .U:.P....^^S-:/%aR s7t(R? -f- 3nS?i ?^Twfflt?r qOTfepfr? •VW\ ^ fe3T ^T?Tt ^i-«R|tT-31RSI Court. Subsequent fhereto, tfae| petitioner has filed thjs present writ petition. Since the subject mattei| of dispute has already been adjudicated by the H^fa Court ^n Second Appeal No.380/1987 (copy whereof is Annexure p - 4) which was disnussed aad that dismissal order was afiSrm^d by the Apex Court in S.L.P.No.9314/1994 on 13-01-^993, fhe question ofreopcnmg the matter by way of this writ p4tition does not arise. What the petitioner realty wants ia this w^t petition is to quash the orders which have been passed by fhi^ Court and mcidentaUy that of Apcx Court, which had disinis^cd the Spccal l^ave Pctition. This cannot bc donc. Accorddigty, tbc pctitioa fails aad is disxnissed. I Certified copy as per nileaaj-J__'i_„ Sd/- . P. C. Naik Judge