Chhattisgarh High Court
WPC/140/2021 of SMT. PADMADEVI Vs STATE OF CHHATTISGARH on 17 September 2026
2026:CGHC:40747 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 140 of 2021 1 - Smt. Padmadevi W/o Late Shri Kishan Chand, Aged About 82 Years R/o Village - Narayanpur, Post Office - Bhagat Deori, Tehsil - Pithora, District - Mahasamund Chhattisgarh., District : Mahasamund,
CGHC010295352020
2026:CGHC:40747
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
WPC No. 140 of 2021
1 - Smt. Padmadevi W/o Late Shri Kishan Chand, Aged About 82 Years R/o Village - Narayanpur, Post Office - Bhagat Deori, Tehsil - Pithora, District - Mahasamund Chhattisgarh., District : Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh
... Petitioner(s)
versus
1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Revenue Department, Mantralaya, New Raipur Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - Collector, Mahasamund District - Mahasamund Chhattisgarh., District :
Mahasamund,
Chhattisgarh
3 - S.D.O. (Revenue) And Land Acquisition Officer, Pithora, District - Mahasamund Chhattisgarh., District : Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh 4 - Tahsildar Pithora, District - Mahasamund Chhattisgarh., District :
Mahasamund,
Chhattisgarh
5 - National Highway Authority Of India Through Project Director, Enforcement Unit, Raipur Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh
... Respondent(s)
For Petitioner(s)
:
None
For State
For Respondent No. 5
:
:
Mr. Arham Siddiqui, Panel Lawyer
Mr. Dhiraj Kumar Wankhede, Advocate
Hon’ble Shri Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Order on Board 18/09/2026
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
1. On 14.07.2025 and 01.09.2026, none appeared nor was there any representation on behalf of the petitioner. Today also, none appears nor is there any representation on behalf of the petitioner, even when the case was called in the second round.
2. In view of the above, this Court is left with no other option but to dismiss the present petition for want of prosecution.
3. Accordingly, the present petition is dismissed for want of prosecution. SD/-
(Amitendra Kishore Prasad)
JUDGE Madhurima