Writ petition dismissed for want of prosecution due to petitioner’s failure to appear.

Eight petitioners, residents of Village Joor, Surajpur, filed a writ petition challenging eviction notices dated 09.09.2020 issued by the Gram Panchayat (Respondent No. 5)

The petitioners sought a writ to quash the said notices and requested directions to restrain the respondent authorities from demolishing their houses and "baadis" (homestead gardens)

Additionally, they prayed for the allotment of the subject land on lease or "patta" in their favor, citing their long-term possession

When the matter was called for hearing on 27.03.2026, no counsel appeared for the petitioners in either the first or second round of calls

Whether the writ petition is liable for dismissal due to non-appearance and lack of prosecution by the petitioners

The Court applied the procedural principle of dismissal for want of prosecution.

This principle allows a court to terminate proceedings without addressing the merits of the case if the party seeking relief fails to appear or demonstrate an active interest in pursuing the litigation

The Court noted that despite the case being called for hearing in two separate rounds, there was no representation on behalf of the petitioners

While the Panel Lawyer for the State and the advocate for the Gram Panchayat (Respondent No. 5) were present and ready to proceed, the petitioners’ continued absence indicated a loss of interest in the subject matter of the petition

The Court reasoned that in the absence of the moving party to press for the prayers regarding the quashing of notices and protection of possession, the only appropriate recourse was to dismiss the matter for want of prosecution

No substantive relief was granted regarding the impugned notices or the protection of the petitioners' property