HHATTISGARH : BILASPUB H COURT OF JUDICATURE C HON’BLE SHRI SR. NAYAK, CJ. WRIT PETITION No. 725 OF 1996 HG SINGLE BENCH (a) Narayan about 60 years, Prasad Son Serwas, of Shri Goka! Aged Prasad, Businessman, Shop No. A—1 and A48, Sharda Chowk, Guru ed about 32 years, Son of Shri Takhatmal, Businessman, Shop No.A-6, Sharda Chowk, Guru Nanak Market, Raipur. (c) , Krishnalai years, Son Chhabra, of Sardar Aged rshwar about Singh 52 Chhabra, Businessman, Shop N0.A- 2, Guru Nanak Market, Sharda Nanak Market, Raipur. Murlidhar, Ag Chowk Raipur. (b) Daulatram 52 years, J. Son Chhabria, of Jethand Aged about C. Chhabria, C-1, Sharda Businessman, Chowk, Guru Shop Nanak No. Market, Raipur. (d) (e) Teekamchand 55 years, Son Lalwani, of Teiumai Aged Laiwani, about Businessman, Shop No. B-8, Sharda Chowk, Guru Nanak Market, Raipur. Aged about 28 of Sagandas, Shop No. 6-9, , Guru Nanak Market, (f) Karpai Thwrani, years, Son Businessman, Sharda Chowk Raipur. i, Aged about 50 years, Businessman, Chowk, Guru (g) Bansiiai Jagg Son of Ram Narayan, Shop NOB—7, Sharda Nanak Market, Raipur. (h) Kumar Naviani, Aged Mansharam, about 30 years, Businessman, Son Shop o NOB-6, Sharda i «—_._ -—:_ #i u‘ Chowk, Guru Nanak Market, Raipur. Inderlai Nara, Aged about 40 years, Son of Late Baichand, Businessman, Shop No.D-2, Sharda Chowk, Guru Nanak Market, Raipur. (j) Parmanand Nanwani, Son of Shobhrajmai Aged abou 43 years, Businessman, Shop NOB-5, Sharda Chowk, Guru Nanak Market, Raipur. Versus RESPONDENTS (i) Raipur Development Authority, Raipur, Through its Chairman, Raipur Development Authority, Raipur. (ii) Shri Suresh Yadu, Aged about 50 years, Son of Shri Basant Lal Yadu, resident of Shivaji Chowk, Raipur. (iii) Ashok Talmaie, Son of Shri Gangaram, Aged about 24 years, resident of Shakti Niwas, Near Rajesh Type Foundary, Jorapara, Raipur. (iv) Indrajeet Singh Thakur, Brahman Para, Raipur. (v) Shri Tarun Chansouriya, son of Shri RR. Sharma, Aged about 24 years, resident of Bada of Laxmichand, Sharda Chowk, Raipur. l Present : None for the petitioners. ORAL ORDER (Passed on 5m May, 2006) When the matter was called out for hearing, none appeared nor rany representation was made on behalf of the petitioners. ln the circumstance, the writ petition is dismissed for non-prosecution. No costs. {:\ t