H§$H CGIERT $F £HHAT?E$$ARH AT B§LA$PHR Review ?eti&mn Na£§ a? 2mg Paiétianm’s ’i L Du “upa Ba? ;\t\'/ ms iLate Adhari, Aged 46 \‘3/ years 2‘ Smt. Punai Wla Laie G§rdhari, Agw about 38 years. 3. Fuwasani Wis Late Punaram Aged 33 yaars. 4. Mand $ingh Dhruv Sic: L&te Ram Gond, Aged 37 years. 5.x: Ganesh Ram Sahu Slo Late Baya *Ram Sahu, Aged 42 years. 5. Chokha Eai Sahu S/o Late Eaya Ram Sahu, aged 39 years. 7’. Amend Ram Sahu, SJG Late Daya Ram Sahu, aged 52 years. 8. Tikam Ram, S/o Late Tuia Ram Sahu, Aged 56 yeare‘ g. Javam Ram $ahu, $ie Dukh Ram Sahu. Aged 48 years. 10. Uday Ram, Sio Dukh Ram Sahu, Aged 39 years. ‘H. Ram Krrshan Sahu, sic Eukh Ram Sahu. Aged 51 years. 12. Khanyiahiai 3am. Sic; Duk‘n Ram Sahu, Aged 49 years. .3 Uman Lai $a'nu, 8/0 Dukh Ram Sahu, Aged 34 years. 14. ahanprasad Sahu, 8.!9 Sukhram $ahu, Aged 41 years. 15. Ramsawroep Sahu, Sis Shrv Prasad Sahu. Aged 41 years. i6. Murai? Sahu, SIG Shiv Praaad 3am. Aged 45 yeare. 17. Prem Sahu, Sm S .év Wasad $ahu, Aged about 37 years. 18. Shane Prasad Sahu, SJG Shiv Praead Sahu, Aged 42 years. 19. Bhudan Gend Aged 39 years. Birchhu Ram Sand, Aged 34 years. 21. SmtFuehpa Baé; Aged 50 years. ‘2” Aii Ra) Viiiage Dais'anga 119, Raipur, Tahsié Raigaur Dist, CG State. Versus Respcmdents 1. State of'C.G. Thraugh: Csmm£ss§cner (Land Records) Raipur Raipur Dist, CG State. ‘ The District Coiiectar, Raipun Raipur D§st., CG State. 3. Tahsiidar, Raipur, Raipur Dist, CG State. {Review Petition fer r viewing the order dated 227.2010 in W.P.(S) - \ No.3665/201 0) \TE £53: Hen’bie Mt. 11?. Shame; ti ;_ Presentz— i Mr.K.R.Neir, ceuneei fer the pettticnere. ' GR§ER {i‘3assed 0n 2§"‘ Auguetg 2313} . By this petition, the petitioner has prayed for rehearing of WF. {C} No.3655/2910, which was dismissed vtde arcter dated 2212??! t), t have heard teamed couneei fer the petitioners. Learned ceunsei for the petitioners submits that the petitianers have not tiied any document teiattng ta attempt made befere the Cemmissionei’ tn their revisien petition, even they have not pteao'ed, but after éiemisset of writ petition, they have obtained a copy ot the appitoation fited before the , Commissioner, Land Records which they have fited atong with the present revtew petitton. At the ttme of tittng of the writ petttton for discretionary retief in termeeof Articte 227' of the Constitution ot’ indie, the parties ere required to me complete document and aiieged their substantiei oiairn. in the absenoe of such document and ciei , the writ petition was dismissed. i do not find any ground for r viewing the order deted 22.7.2910 passed by this Court in Vii.P.(C} ‘o.3665/’ the review petition is dismissed. ‘, T.P. Sharma Judge W i Sci/- ‘