é% HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Writ Petition No. 525 OF 2001 f-A" Petitioner; 1 . Bachha Ram Son of Shivchamn Gond, aged about 45 years, R/o Pathrapali, Tahsil Kharsiya, District Raigarh (C.G.).‘ Shankar Lal, Son of Jhadu Ram, aged about 25 years, msident of Patxapali, RS. and Tehsil Kharsiya, District Raigarh (C.G.). Man Kunwar, widow of Late Sheetal Pmsad, aged about 4O years, resident of Patrapali, RS. and Tehsil Khmiya Distt. Raigaxh (C.G.). Versus 1, Comnnssmner Bllasimr D1v1s1on, Bllaspur Addmonal Collector, Raigarh Sub Divisional Omcer {Revenue} “Kharsiya, District Raigarh. Lal Singh S/o Budu Gond, resident of Bothalda Tahsil Khaxsiya, Dism‘ct Ra'igaha. Kripa Ram S/o Jhégar Singh Aghariya, r/o Bothalda Tahsil Kharsiya, District Raigarh. Mani Ram S/o Jhar Singh Agharsiya, msident of Bothalda, Tahsil Kharsiya, District Raigarh. Banshi S/o Shn'bachh Aghaxiya, r/o Bothalda, Tahsil Kharsiya, Disuict Raigarh. Kuj Bihari S/o Paras Ram Aghariya, r/o Bothalda, Tahsil Kharsiya, Dishict Raigarh. Kam'k Ram S/o Manbodh Aghaliya, r/o Bothalda \Tahsil, Kharsiya, District Raigarh. Lekh Ram S/o Manbodh Aghariya, r/o Bothalda Talisil Kharsiya, District Raigar. Respohdents 10. RIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION INDIA. ($3 :Hon’ble Mr. T.P.Sharma, J.) Presentz- Mr. H.S, Patel Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. Akhil Agréwal, P.L. for the State/ respondents No. 1 to 3. Ms. Sonia Kuldeep, Advocate for the respondent No. 4. None for the respondents No. 5 to 10. ORDER (Passed on 29111l2011) h “9 W OF ' 1. By this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India ‘p‘etitioners have challsnged the legality and propriety of the order r dated 10/ 9/99 passed by Additional CoHector, Raigarh in Appeal ~ Case No. 41/A-23/98-99 ammg the order dated 31/7/98 passed by Sub Divisional O$cer, Kharsiya in Revenue Case No. 28/A- 23/ 97-98 Whexeby application tiled on behalf of the Lal Singh has been allowed and Sub Divisional Oiiicer has dilected for return of land to Khubu, Ghasiya 85 Bhankunwar although earlier proceeding relan'ng to same land under Section 170B,of the Code "r' iiled on behalf of the DharaJg/Thas been fmally dismissed. After some argument, learned counsel for the petitioners submits ' that he seeks to withdraw this petition with liberty to approach before the Sub Divisional Ohicer in the light of its oxder dated V 8/ 1/99 passed in case No. 35/Prastu-1/99. Prayer allowed. Consequently, petition is dismissed as withdrawn with afomsaid a liberty. No order as to costs. l t "LP. Shanna Judge * ‘H