||B||»Bench' Petitioner Contempt Case (C) No. ^L|V} /2011 Mukesh Kumar Singh aged about 37 years, S/o Shri Someshwar Nath Singh, R/o Prema Bag, Ward No. 13 Jail Road, Baikunthpur, Distt. Koriya f^ Respondents 1. Renuka Shrivastava, Sub Divisional Officer (Rj, Nazul Officer, Baikunthpur, Distt. Koriya 2. . Ashish Saxsena, Tahsildar, Baikunthpur, iF T33 1 + ^f '^••-T-^-yS^.. 'il s '®SKS^^ N ^ ^^yF-ifr-1--^^ "Svi ^iqioq,. ®ii1y4i<o,f^rray :...^..^...^R^i sn^r itra^ (yit^str) aitn'^ifeh; ?NT o-if^ ^*1 SB: Hon'bieShrLlvIanindra^MohanShriyastaya. J Cl-08-2011 I'siiwafe; an^r oetitiorler petitior|er Shri Parag Kotecha, couhsei ror Meara. Learned counsei for the' jsassed in W.P.(C) No.2234/11 , the ^ny demolition proceedings untii deci; 1-ie submits that ihereafter, some proper opportunity of heanng, an oraeri {>f the petitioner and hoiding the tsetit'oners appiication for stay could Ifralis have been demoiished. Learneci t;ieariy amounts to wiilfui disobedience A perusal of order dated 28/04^ |he respondents from taking any coei| Ijniess and unfil reDresentation of broceedings placed bv the Detitioner ^ [>assed, proceedings were drawn whicl |t has been stated thai proceedings ha) pr me (joun ana inereaner, on brder hoiding that the petitioner is an petltioner approacned mis Court by f!| pny intenm oraer couia De passea,a p< ! 5/6/2011. 30/5/2101 «I'I<<ICT<<I'I 11'ill'T '9 'feTZt <fa|<^l< i? aiSm 3iit% :he petitioner. submits that vide order dated 28/04/11 re|sponaents were restrainea trom taung up jion OT me representanon or tns peiinoner. prcjceeaings were drawn and without giving jwas passed on 30/05/11 rejecting the case as encroacher and thereafter, before the foe heard by the Court on 15/6/2011, two counsei for the petitioner submrts that this t>f order dated 26/04/2011 . R011 shows that this Court had restrained ifcive action or demolition of the structure, petitioner is decided. Copv of the Ihow that after the order of the Court was rererrea to ine oraer aatea ^8/4/^011 anc! |/e been initiated in compiiance ot' the order 5/21011, the Sub-DiVtsionai Officer passed an incroacher. It appears that thereafter, the |ing W.P.(C) No.3G73/11, however, before brt of the structure has been demoiished on ^iiy<fti^^^i<i ^s*ffT^, -FS/I40—Z/2011—1,50, 7sr •<ii<)ioi<{,."^Tf|yiii, (^t. dwe- ((" ) t^.0 . ^^ ^/// 200 3?I^?[1RRT (ijqf^^fEF) SB^I ^BI Ri-fi* ^ff olii^o 3^ii<* 'TOiiwafig an^T --^- CM*<t<'l4^T HWV^ ^ I^St ^^|< •^sifwon^i Deepii The protection against demoiiti tvide its order dated 28/4/20n only |in was given to the petitioner by this Court (II decision oi his representation. inougn iearned counsel for the petitioner sut)mits that his representation was decided iwithout giving him proper opportunity proceedings, that by itsetf, cannot be disobedience of order dated 28/4/201 1 'without commenting the tega| t>f hearing which is under chaiienge in fresh Imade a basis to urge that there has been ity and vaiidity of the decision taken in petitioners case by the authority, aii th^t can besaict is that in the absence ofthere being any order to protect the petinon r against demolition, even aner rejection or his representation, in the opinion of ti|)is Court, no case of disobedience of order dated 28/4/2011 is made out. notice. This however. shall notstandl grounds against iegaiity and vaiidity c|r Therefore, i am not inciined to issue any in the way of ihe petitioner in raising ail his proceedings and orders with regard to the case of the petitioner. Sd/- Manindra Mohan Shrivastava Judge ?[DS"^<)' ^-^ ^"Dci'il, ^T^I'^ii^—FS/140—2/20U—1,50,000. ./-/