← Library
High Court Of ChhattisgarhWPC/1166/2015dismissed

Pratap Singh v. State Of Chhattisgarh

2015-07-09Hon'Ble Shri Justice Manindra Mohan Shrivastava2 pages

NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR WPC No. 1166 of 2015

1. Pratap Singh S/o Late Jodhan Singh Aged About 64 years Residents Of Village Suhela, Post Office And Police Station Suhela, Tahsil Simga, District BalodabazarBhatapara (Chhattisgarh)

2. Ishwar Lal Verma S/o Late Kanhaiya Lal Verma Aged About 72 Years Residents Of Village Suhela, Post Office And Police Station Suhela, Tahsil Simga, District Balodabazar- Bhatapara (Chhattisgarh)

3. Niranjan Verma S/o Late Khamhan Lal Verma Aged About 58 Years Residents Of Village Suhela, Post Office And Police Station Suhela, Tahsil Simga, District Balodabazar- Bhatapara (Chhattisgarh)

4. Reva Ram S/o Sita Ram Aged About 56 Years Residents Of Village Suhela, Post Office And Police Station Suhela, Tahsil Simga, District Balodabazar- Bhatapara (Chhattisgarh)

5. Ramadhin S/o Late Nohar Verma Aged About 63 Years Residents Of Village Suhela, Post Office And Police Station Suhela, Tahsil Simga, District Balodabazar- Bhatapara (Chhattisgarh) ---- Petitioners

Versus

1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through : The Secretary, Revenue Department, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Capital Complex, Naya Raipur, District Raipur (Chhattisgarh)

2. The Additional Commissioner (Revenue), Raipur Division Raipur, District Raipur (Chhattisgarh)

3. The Collector, District Balodabazar- Bhatapara (Chhattisgarh)

4. Sub- Divisional Officer (Revenue), Balodabazar- Bhatapara, Bilaigarh, District Balodabazar- Bhatapara (Chhattisgarh)

5. Naib Tahsildar, Suhela, Post Office & Police Station Suhela, Tahsil Simga, District Balodabazar- Bhatapara (Chhattisgarh) ---- Respondents For Petitioners - Shri V.K. Pandey, Advocate For Respondents/State - Ms. Sunita Jain, Panel Lawyer Order On Board 09/07/2015 Heard.

1.

After arguing for sometime, learned counsel for the petitioners submit that as the

impugned order can be challenged by way of revision, he may be permitted to withdraw this petition with liberty to file revision before the Board of Revenue. 2.

With the liberty as prayed for, this petition is dismissed as withdrawn. 3.

As prayed by learned counsel for the petitioners, certified copy of the impugned order may be returned to him after retaining photocopy of the same. Sd/- Manindra Mohan Shrivastava J U D G E Rekha