IN.THE HIGH COURT OI? CHHATTISGARH AT BIIASPUR_(_C.G._)_^ MRIT PETITZON ^N0. /^'^_/20C)1 PETI7IONER RESPONDENIS : .--•'Kanfeilal, s/o. shri C-hunnilal S'?/o. Villsge - Kharsiya, age 7%^r Tahsii - Kharsiya, Dlstrict ~ Raigarh (Chhattisgarh)« VEESUS 1) Daulatraia, s./o. Shri Jagat- rasnKanwar, K/o. Village - Gorpara, Talisil - Kharsiya, District - piaiqarh (C.G-.). —=sf^f"ff?<' ^^-^- The state of Chhe.ttlsgarl-i, Through : Collector Raigarh 3$ The sub Divi.s-i-onal Offlcer, Khars-i-ya;, Disfc. Ra-Lgarh. 4) The Cornraissioner , Bilaspur Divisi.on,.'Bilaspi-ir (C.G«). i]l£S-JS^£TI2N^I£5:E;LJffi2rcI£--13j2^^ OF IHDIA» fflGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT 8.B: Hon'ble Shri Prashant Kumar Mishra PETITIONER Writ Petition No. 1045/2001 : ICantBal Versus RESPONDENTS Dairiatram and others Appearance: Shri Sunil Sahu, couasel for the petitioner. Shri Vinod Tekam, Panel Lawyer for the State. WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226/227 OF THE CONSTTTUTION OF INDIA ORAL ORDER (06.12.2010) The petitioner has called in question the order passed by the Commissioner, Bilaspur Division (in the order passed by this court on 26/10/2010 it is wronly mentioned that Annexure P-5 has been passed by the Board ofRevenue the same stands corrected) which in tum was preferred against the order passed by the Additional Collector remanding the matter for fresh enquiry. (2) There is no interim order staying the proceedings before the Sub Divisional Officer, Revenue after the remand. (3) Learned counsel for the petitioner is not in position to inform this court about the present status ofthe proceedings. (4) In view of the above, it is directed that if proceedings after remand are not yet concluded, the same shall be completed by the 5ub Divisional OfEcer within a reasonable time. (5) With the above observation, the petition stands disposed of. Sd/- Prashant Kumar Mishra Judge