1\*<-.'. BEFORE THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR M.C.C. N0. / ^ 2—Qf 2006. APPLICANTS RESPONDENT N0. 2 & 3 NON-APPLICANTS....-^ y~..--' ^ .^:' ..••f^ss' ,^^-, ^' ^'^--' CUB&K ^OTA^^ r pt.msni '^:. * /FeTnzsHilssain^ ^. KST-tRl'f'IOrOC'i^El'') lg<^%^^^3 ^^<«£C M.^._2T/^^ (\~>. '•<'~1I>-a-S8 ,} r^ , >^ CHM^ :-J-^Raipur Development Attthority, Through : its ChiefExecutive OfGcer, Raipur (Chhattisgarh), ^2. ChiefExecutive Officer, Raipur Development Authority, District - Raipur (Chhattisgarh). VERSUS 1. Surendra Kumar Arora, aged about 42 years, son ofjeevandalmal Kakkad, resident ofA-20, Shankar Nagar, Raipur, Distt. Raipur (Chhattisgarh), PETITIONER 2. State of Chhattisgarh, Through f Secretary, Revenue Department, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (Chhattisgarh), 3, Tahsildar, Raipur, District Raipur (Chhattisgarh), 4. N.M.D.C. Employees Cooperative ^ Housing Society Ltd., Through its Secretary, Civil Lines, Raipur, District Raipur (Chhattisgarh). RESPONDENT N0.1. 4 AND 5 ./' APPLICATION FOR EXTENTION OF TIME. M ^ •^ l-COP^ -7f3/^ ,,&:G.B^U& ^L XI-HC-78 *<T*tdl Sb+11* 3:5ET '^IWM'f, ^Xll'M'Ko, fsldl'My f^ .y.\.^>r^..\\ff^...... ^ ^QQ^ 3T1^?T Mach (y<t^q<^a-) aiT^srw R-fieh tWT an^r giitR) Soma ?RtTWfff?a'3:I1^T 13-9-2006 Mr. H.B. Agrawal, Senior for the appiiconts. Mr. Vaibhav A. ©overdhan,c<t Heard both the counsel. This application has been ^iled r-epr-esentation made by non-opplicai^t the applicants herein were direc^ed applicant No.l herein within a perioc^ Learned counsel for" the Patwar'is demarcation could not be| made on 18-5-2006, but unfortujiately months have elapsed, even the^i, r-epresentation of non-applicont extension of time has been given No.112/2006) is rejected. A<|vocate with Mr. Pankaj /Igrawal, Advocate ab °fti'iif<-i<fl-] tiiiTil ^''fs<^t<Ri«re ^siRtii'sn^r ^unsel for non-applicant No.l. flled fof extension of time to decide the Na.l herein. Vide order dated 9-11-2005, to decide the representation of non- of three months from that day. ajsplicants submits that due to strikes of made and ultimately, the demiircation was jjiately, even after 18-5-2006 about four e^i, no order has been possed on the ^o.l. Accordingly, no Justification for by the applicants. The application (M.C.C. Sd/- L.C. Bhadoo Judge