1 APPELLANTS RESPON DENTS : Medm' Pfa’sad S/o'Sevak Ram Gabely aged about 57 yéars; Purushottam S/o Late Santram G‘ahal, aged about4g/years‘; BabulaL Sfg43haniiam “I Gabe], . Stau of Lhhamsgarh through Thc Collector RaJgarh, District r Ralgarh (LG). (GJ mmm gawk aged aboutg7yea.r%, 1 R/o Vi11agc Navapara, Tahsil Kharsiya, District Raigarh‘ (C.G.). t i . t i i The Sub D1v1S10nal Officer, (Revenue) cum Land Acquisition Officer, Kharsiya, District Raigarh (C.G.). \ tr The Executive l Engincer, Minimata Hasdeo Bango Project, w Kharsiya, District Raigarh (C.G.). a . i i 1 1N rHE Ho BLE HIGH COURT or CHHATFH‘SGARH‘ A! BILAsPUR (c G ) fgwq FiRsT APPEAENQ VERSUS ‘IRST AEPPLAL UNDLR QDCTION R4 Of‘ THF‘ LAI D VALUATION OF THE APPEAL . aw T S WW.W.W . Pww WV/O W? 1W4 °3 warm 1H 200 m Man WW f§€tW W1 m mmmm ammm (DB: Hon’ble Shri Satish K. A gnihotr‘i, & Hon’bk Shri Rajeshwar ‘Lal Jhanwar, JJ) 5. l . 20 1 O Shr‘i Rajnish Shrivastava, Advocate for the appellants. As‘ prayed, three weeks itime is granted to the appeHants to make good the default, pointed out by the Registxy, failing which the appeal may stand dismissed for want 0f prosecution. Sd/- Sd/~ Satish K. Agnihom Judge R.L. Jhanwar Judge