EIVE RUPE§§ W:WM IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Review Petition N0. a / 20 1 O $§ng§a "gencb‘ Petitioner/ Responde No.1 Kw“ t N/ W/o Smt. Shrl Anupama . Raghuraj . Smgh, Singh . aged Tilakchandi, about 34 QQ§ years, Sarpanch of Village Panchayat — W" Dodki, R/o Village —V Dodki, Tahsil and Block —- Masturi, District — Bilaspur» wi'TChhattisgarh) Versus Respondent/ 1. ’_ ,Smt. Annu Devi Anchal, aged about 25 Petitimer / years, W/o Shri Rohit, R/o Village Daldali, Village Panchayat Dondki, Block 85 Tahsil — Masturi, District — Bilaspur (Chhattisgarh) Smt. Anjali Devi Shriwas, aged about 33 years, W/o Shri Akhileshwar Prasad. V Smt. Kaushilya Bai Kuwbhani, aged about 63 yeare; W/o Shri Anjori Singh. Smt. Gayatri Sonwani, aged 21 years, W/o Shri Shivraj. Smt. Dashmat Khushal, aged about 30 years, W/o Shri Jairam Singh. Smt. Bahura Bai Markam, aged about 32 years, W/o Shri Dasheram. Smt. Shakuntala Sinha, aged 37 years, W/o Shri Jagannath Prasad No. 2 to 7 are R/o Village Dondki, Block & Tahsil -— Masturi, Distt. Bilaspur (Chhattisgarh) . Smt. Kanti Bai Rai, aged about 3O years, W/o Shri Shrawan Kumar. Smt. Bhukhaiya Rai, aged 39 years, W/ o Shri Laxman. ' p " “I / % , 1: Smt. Rameshwari Anchal, aged 26 years, i1. Smt. Sukhin Anchal, aged 48 years, W/o Shri Kishan. Respondents No. 8 to 11 are R/o Village — Daldali, Village Panchayat Dondki, Block 85 Tahsil — Masturi, District — Bilaspur (Chhattisg’arh). Sub Divisional Officer/Specified Officer, ”Bilaspur, District— Bilaspur (C.G.) HIGH REVIEW COURT PETITION OF CHHATTISGARH UNDER RULE 9O RULES {2l CHAPTER 2007 FOR VI REVIEW OF THE OF W/ o Shri. Dilharan. /i. OF HON’BLE THE ORDER SINGLE DATEU’éOTH BENCH IN WRIT SEPTEMBER, PETITION 2010 (227! PASSEDMBY NO 2709 TILAKCHANDI 2010 {ANNU 85 OTHERS! DEVI ANCHAL . Vs SMT. ANUPAMA SINGH. é H IGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR REWEW PETiTiON N0. 11? OF 2010 Smt. Anupama Singh Tiiakchandi .9) Petitioner Versus Smt. Annu Devi Ancha! & Others REVIEW PETlTlON UNDER RULE 90(2) CHAPTER VI OF THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATT!SGARH RULES, 2007 FOR REVIEW OF THE ORDER DATED 30TH SEPTEMBER, 2010 Respondents (SB : Hon’hie Mr. Satish K. Agnihotri, J1) 9resent :— ‘ None far the petitioner. None for the respondents. ORDER (ORAL; (Passed on 05‘“ day of January, 201 1) 1. The matter is caiied for hearing. None appears nor is any representation made on behalf of the petitioner. The petitioner may not be interested in pursuing the matter. 2. in View of the above? the matter is dismissed for want of prosecution. Sd/- Satjsh K.Agnihotri Judge f‘x