^^}-zr^ 8 IN THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR W.P. fS) No. :7' 33 ^ /2009 PETITIONER ^ RESPONDENTS ^ /rf-^.** ^' ^w/ ^M'/ rw ^w /' : Mohd. Nabijan, S/o. Mohd. Wali, aged about 59 years, R/o. Village Datima^ Tahsil Surguja, District Surguja (C.G.) VERSUS 1] State of Chhattisgarh, Through: Secretary, Revenue & Aapda Prabandhan Department, D.K.S. Bhawan., Raipur, Distt. Raipur (C.G.) 2] Collector (Land Records), Ambikapur, Surguja, District Surguja (C.G.) 3] Commissioner, Land Records, Chhattisgarh Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) 4] Tahsildar, Surajpur, District Surguja (C.G.) ,5] Nayab Tahsildar, Pilkha, Vishrampur, District Surguja (C.G.) 6] Secretary, General Administration Department, State of Chhattisgarh, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) 7] Sub-Divisional Officer, Surajpur, District Surguja (C.G.) 8] Manoj Kumar Gupta^ Patwari, P.H.No. 34, R.I. Circle, Pilkha, Tahsil Surajpur, District Surguja (C.G.) WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA ^ ^ HIGH COUR.T OF CHHATTiSGARHAT BiLASPUR WRIT PETITION (S) No. 7396 of2009 PETiTIONER RESPONDENTS Mohd. Nabijan. VERSUS State of Chhattisgarh & Others. WR!T PETlTiON UNDER ARTICLES 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF !ND!A SB: Hon'bte Shri Satish K. Agnihotri, J. Present: Shri Manoj Paranjpe, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri Y.S.Thakur, Deputy Advocate Genera! for the State. ^ Amit ORDER (ORAL) (Passed on 17th day of December, 2009) 1. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, on instructions, submits that the petitioner does not want to contest this petition on merits at this stage, However, he prays that a directlon may be issued to the respondent authorities to consider and decide his representation dated 7.10.2009 (Annexure P/5), . pending consideration before the Coliector, Surguja, as early as possibie. 2. Shri Thakur, leamed Deputy Advocate General appearing for the State submlts that the pending representation, as stated above, shal! be considered and decided by the respondent authorities in accordance with the law, as eariy as possibie, preferably within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 3. !n view of the foregoing, according to learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, nothing survives for adjudication. 4. Consequently, the writ petition Is dismissed as withdrawn with the aforestated observations and directlons. —~"~~~~~~~~~~~r' Sd/- SatishK.Agnihotri Judge