f^ ^vv*t c IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR ^.c^"- Contempt Petition (0 No. ^) I /2010 gt^^Ia ^©^ PETITIONER Asgari Begam, Widow of Sekh ^V^f, ^ Samshuddm, Aged about 58 ^L>V- ^ ^ ^^'oK years, R/o. Magarpara, Bilaspur, >---";^' ..A^fc Tahsil & District Bilaspur (C.G.). VERSUS Rajjab Ali, S/o. Roshan Ali, Aged about 43 years, R/o. Chatidih, Bilaspur, Tahsil & District Bilaspur (C.G.) i:^" ^-s:^- RESPONDENT CONTEMNOR CONTEMPT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 215 OF THE CONSTITUTION READ^WITH SECTION 10 Ss 12 OF THE CONTEMPT OF COURTACT IC-22 3'n^T^T f<rii<=h <3Tr^r $t)^icti ^f^a \—^. \-. }\ ^5=r';;?FiMzr, ^Tfl^^Ko, faoii^y ani^r Csr^- • G^^€.(C^ '2^;y^1 -D ^l^cil ^^i^*-—••————••—•Y—-<^F^ 2( 'I^^T' 1-9 ^TT^T i^TTWHf^T SB : Hon'ble Shri Manindra IVIoh^n Shrivas^^^ 06-04-2011 Shri Atanu Ghosh, oounsei f^ Shri Viprasen Agrawal, cour Shyam Agrawal, counsel for respor| Heard. Learned counsel^for the p^ interim order waspassed by this of 2009, directing both the parties subject lapd, which was continued | the responcient is proceeding to whioh amounts to violation of thj Learned counsel further submits before the Poiice Station on 28-( Tahsiidar, Bilaspur on the same da( On the other hand, learif categorically denied and has with the contempt petition are not| disputed land. Learned counseli construction, the Police had not t^ Learned counsel also submits thaf rf^ade in the year 2003, a report the aliegations were found to be in^ tt appears that the petition^ order cn the basis of allegations| construction over the disputed tanc(^ the petitioner has moved an app| Bilaspur. The petitioner may ct)h?<n4i1<-i ^i^<viT<^ Fs^l <F^^l< ^3Tf^R3T1^T ^r the petitioner |sei under instructions from Shri Sanjay 1dent. ttitioner submits that even though, an , dourt on 10-03-2010 in W.P. (227)No.680 i^) maintain status quo with respect to the |on subsequent date i.e. on 31-03-2010, rafse construction over the disputed land, t^ interim order passed by this Court. th^t the petitioner submitted an applicatian P6-2010 as also before the Additional te, but no action has been taken. |ed. counsei for the respondent has that the photographs annexed along lcorrect and they are not related to the further submits that as there is no t^ken any action against the respondent. earlier aiso, when such aiiegation was v^jas submitted by the Naib Tahsitdar and t^orrect. has been alleging violation of interim that the respondent is making certain whioh has been denied. It is found that ioation before the Additional Tahsitdar, the concerned authority, who wiii appitoach [Tft^ ^p^^l I-HC-22 3?I^T'3FT ^i<=h 3?n^r 9b*ii<=ri 'M^a 'Tumane t- ^? <^|i^id4, ^•alwi<o, f^<y»i^y 3ff^r 'q5RR _.^:.^C}^^1Q ^ ^flHCII ^Hlch •^ ^oo '^^ar' 3?n^?T'^n^R ^rft?[ •^- hold fact finding enquiry to find out construction has been raised or not revive this contempt petition after discharged. Accordingiy, the petition is finalt chl^i^l^ Ht^<?tf'^'fe^' <f^^t< '^ari^m^n^T the present status and whether the The petitioner would be at tiberty to ^uch enquir^. Ruie is therefore \( disposed off. Sd/- ManindraMohan Shrivastava Judge [Tft^'^fe^