IN THE AT M> C> q N0- 7^0F 2004 ^^^ (Artesng out of dismissa! In pursuance tq^rder 14J11/03 passed in ClvIS Revlsion N0^55/03) /1) Nahdklshore, Son of Taranslngh Aged about51years, APPLSCANTS PiTSTLQNERS SVIotlram, SonofRambharosSahu, Aged about 41 years, 3) Pancham, /. Son ofBudhau, Aged about 65 years, 4) Rajkumar, / Son&f Bhatparlya, Aged about 18 years, 5) Ramavatar, Sonof Mjthth.u, Aged about 29 years, \6w" ^^ %^' .\ <^:ga ^'"F ©) Madho, / Son ofGaneBh Sahu, ^ Agedabout40years, 7) Siddharam, SonsfG>aaesh^ahu, Aged about 35,years, {ASi Residents of Vllage - Tura, Semariya, Tahsri-Navagarh, ^TS:?^"- -Duf3.(c'G;^^ ^S^\ nCr'^'B-^1 <^^ OI...A«? y ^' !/ /" te^to^ ^ 'el'^ilu? Gheevchand, Son of Bhuvan Satnami, Aged about 52 years, Occupatlon - agriculture, of Tura, Semarlya, TahsiS-Navagarh, Dlstt. - Durg (C.G.) NON APPUCANTS; RESPONDENTS ^^s:;:^ f.^-.^sSSf^v^s^Si^Sv^eKw^^^^^^^^^^'' ^Mtooiw-^^^ ^a2^ ^p "^ 2) Malikram, < Son of Padum Satnami, Aged about 40 years, Occupation - Agriculture, Resldent of Tura, Semariya, TahslS—Navagarh, Durg (C.G.) ofChhattlsgarh through The CoSlector Durg, Distt. - Durg (C.G.) ^) Karanj Son of Raruha Satnami, Aged about 75 years, /5) Narayan, Son of Karanj Satnami, Aged about 54 years, 6) Brijial, SonofKaranj Satnami, Aged about 50 years, ^7) Dharamdas, Son of KaranjSa.tnami, Aged about 45 years, ^8) Malik, Son of Karanj Satnaml, Aged about 42 years, Dhanlram, Son ofKaranj Satnami, Aged about 35 years, (Non appSJcants No. 4 to 9 are AgncuSturist, & of Vsggage - Rtea-amaSI, a TahslS - Navagarh, - Durg (C.G,) 10) Smt AshwanjB^ / ^^ S1W II -l^.^v^ 1^*^ ^.:^-.^ '^^'' W/o NamakSai Bhaskar, Aged about 38 years, Resldent ofVillage - Tarvarpur, Post- Karesara, Tahsl! - MungeSi, Dlstt. - (C.G.) 3,1) Son of Jhumuk Satnami, Aged about 42 years,Agriculturist, Resldent of VISjage Tura, Semariya, Tahsli - Navagarh, Dlstt. - Durg (C.G.) 12) Kunjram, Son ofThanvar Satnami, Aged about 75 years, I. .^' ® ^— ^ 13) Prem, Son of Kunjram, Aged about 50 years, 14) Dtianush, Son of Kunjram, /' Aged about 45 years, 15) Chandrika, Son ofKunjram Satnami, / Aged about 35 years, {Non appiicants No. 12 to 15 are agricujtunst & ofVI!!age Pand, TahsII - Mungeli, Distt-BJjaspur(C.G.) ^) Janakjal, Son of Lakhanj Satnamj, / Aged about 51 years, 1 ^) eopai, Son of Dakhanl Satnami, Aged about 25 years, {Non applicants No. 16 & 17 are Residepit of VjljQge Tura, Semariya, Tahsi! - Navagarh, Dlstt, - Durg (C.G.) 18) Amrit Bal, Wldow of Jugnu Satnami, / Aged about 65 years, Resldent of Vjljage Tura, Semariya, Tahsli - Navagarh, Dlstt. - Durg (C.G.) 19) Smt Guiab Bal, W/o Gheevchand Satnami, ^ Aged about 48 Occupatlon - agriculture, Reslcjent ofVHiage .Manpur, Tahsli - Navagarh, DIstt. - Durg(C.G.) 20) Rajkumari, p/o Ma!ll<ram, / Aged about18 years, R^sldent ofVijjage - Tura, Semariya, TahslS - Navagarh, DIstt. Durg (C.G.) ^^ .-* ?T;- •?•-. .^"., ^ ^} t: '^ (l^ i^fr"^^^! I,^^'^j ./; 21} Kunwariya, D/o IVIallkram, / Aged about 18 years, Rgsldent ofViiiage-Tura, Semariya, Tahsl! - Navagarh, Distt. Durg (C.G.) ^^ "^•'^ ^ ^^ 2g) Pyari Bal. D/o MaSikram, / Aged abQut 12 years, 23) Uttara Bal, D/o Majlkram, Aged about 9 years, ^' ^ ^ ® {Non applscants Np. 22 & 23 are MJnor, through the Naturai Guardian, mother Smt. Rajo Bal, W/o Maiikram Gadartya, Resldent of VISSage - Rampur, Tah^lf1 - Bemetara, Distt. - Durg (C.G.) APPUCATION FOR XI-HC-22 '3^[ ';;ITFTT^ ^^^<^ fa<1<^y STI^T^FT f^ri^^niCT $b^ict»^n /.-s ^ HI^Cfll ^HIch sni^r 'q^ra? ^.C,cM6. /5'/.2-^4l. 200 'M •^R^ar' 3TI^T ^^iT^R ^Tf^T de 19.08.2004 Shri R.S. Jaiswal, counsel Q Heard. Counsel for the applicants I 305/2003, was taken up for heari4 be paid within seven days and fail{ dismissed without farther referend complied-the aforesaid order pass Accordmgly, in view of fhe orc revision petition has been dismisse^ Having considered the fa<| material on record, the application to ifs original number i.e. C.R. Nc other side, leaving openthe questio >r the applicants. submits that when the matter, C.R. No. ; on 14.11.2003 it was directed that P.F. ing which the revision petition shall stand to the Bench. The petttioners have not ^d by this Court in C.R. No. 305/2003. |er passed by this Court the aforesaid ^l^(d<lflT1 'RTR^Tf ^ ft1c2t Tf^R$R '^3ri^R3TT^T tts and circumstances of the case and is allowed. The civtl revision is restored 305/2003 subject to objection taken by ^i ofmamtainability pfthis r6vision. r Sd/- Fakhruddin Judge ^[Tfl'^^fe&