r' IN THE HIGH GOUKI' OF CHHATnSGAKH : BILASPUR Petitioner Respondents Wri.tjtetition Na,2132 of 2002 Mafaesh Raia, S/o Maya Rata, aged about 62 years, Resident ofVfflage - Bhelwatikra, Tehsil & Distt. Ra^arh (C.G.) Versus 1. State of Chhattiisgarii, Through Sccretaiy, Revenue Departinent, D.K.S. Buitda^, Raipur (C.G.) 2. Collector, Raigarh(C.G.) 3. Sub-Divisional Officer, Ra^arh Chlaattisgarh. 4. BanwasS/oMakhanRawat 5. ' G°pi@ Govind, S/o Bedram 6. • GhasnenBai, widow of Bedram. 7. NanldD/oSautram 8. KushiD/oSaD.ttani 9. PiliD/oSantram I 10. MunuS/oSantram 11. Jhunu S/o Santrain 12. Nandai D/o Santraia 13. JugesIiwarS/o Kuujrain 14. Hetraia S/o Jal Siugtt Residcnts of Respondeats No. 4 t6 14 sd. Vfflage - Bhelwatikra, Tehsil and District— Ra^arh(C.G.) WRIT PE'I'mON UNDERARTICLE 226/227 OF THE CONSTrrUTION OF INDIA (SB: Hon'ble Shri Satisfa K. Aguihotn J.) Shri Suml Sahu, Advocate for fhe pedtioner. Shri Shashank Thakur, Panel Lawyer for the respondents No. 1 to 3. 1. ORDER (fassed pa tliis 21at Day pf October, 2008) Lcamed counsel appcariiig ftw the petitioner submits yJaat despite thc best efforts, he could not obtaui latest sffid correct address of thc respoiulents No. 4 to 14 till date and as such fhey reniain uaserved. The petitioner has feiled to efiecf i .; . service of the notice, The petitioner Iias not inale jaay subnussion to seek pemussion tbr substituted serwice. |Tlie 2. Tbakur case cannot be consideredon luerits, prejudiciag fhe cases fberespondeiits. i TIius, the ipetitaou is dismiissed fer want bf proseciitKai. Sd/- Satish K.Agnihotri Judge of