@ HIGH COURT OF CHHATHSGARH AT BIASF-‘UR Contempt Petition No. 81 of 2008 PETETIOMEW" 1 Udao Ra} Parakh‘ S/o Shri Mangai Chand Parakh, aged abouf 50 years, Occupation ~— Business, resident of GE. Road, Rajnandgaon, Distvict Rajnandgaon (C(G‘) Ashak Parakh, S/o Shri Laxmi, Chand Parakh, aged about 5'5 years, resident of GE. Road, Rajnandgaon, and District Rajnandgaon (CG) Vgtmus RE3PONDENT$ 1 Sanjay Garg, CoHector, Rajnandgaon, District Rajnandgaan (C.G.) 2 Aiok Sun Commissioner‘ Municipal‘ Corporation, Rajnandgaon, District Ramandgaon (C‘G‘) CONTEMPT PETITION UNDER ARTbCLE 215 OF THE CONSTRTUTKDN OF LN§3§A READ WITH EEC'HGN 12 OF THE CONTEMPT OF COURT$ ACT Appeacance 2 Mr. Raiew Shrivastava & Mr. LS. Sahu, Advocates for the petitéoner. Mr. BD. Guru‘ Advocate far respondent No.1. Mr. Scarabh Sharma‘ Advocate for {espondent No.2. ORAL ORDER (01 .12.2009) SUN“. KUMAR mNHA, J. He:arc£. The pe$itioners have filed the present pe’ti‘tion fer initiation of proceadiHgs of contempt against the respondents for alleged wiHfu} defauit in compiiance of the order dated 27"“ of August, 2007 passed in W.P,(C) No. 5189/2007. in the aforesaid writ petition, the petitioners submitted that the Coiiecior, Rajnandgaon/responden’t No.1 herein vide order dated 13.12.2005 directed the Tehsiidar, Rajnandgaon and the Commissioner, Municipai Corporation, Rainandgaon to setiie the ianciiess persons in Pandit Dincieyai ‘ \ Upadhyay Negar Chikhii, Kanchanbagh. houses constructed under Vaimiki» x Amioedkar Awas 8cheme. it was aiso submitted that despite of the clear order passed by the Coiiecior, Rajnandgaon on 13.12.2005, no action has been 2/ ontempt Petition N0. 61 of 20 C 08 taken by the authorities tin date. Thereafter the petitioners moveci a representation to the Collector on 18.7.2007 and the Coiiector has not iaken any steps to ensure compliance of the earlier order elated 13.12.2005. However‘ learned ceunsel appearing on behalf 0f the petitioners submitted that the petitioners; do not want to press other points, except that respendent No.2/Collecter therein be directed to consider and decide their representation dated 18.72007 expeditiousiy in accordance with law to ensure comptiance of the order dated 13.12.2005. This was not opposed by learned counsel for the State. Accordingly the writ petition was disposed of by passing the following direction: “The respondent No.2/Collector, Rajnandgaon. is directed to consider and decide the representation dated 18.7.2007 (Annexure P/13) of the petitioners to ensure compliance ot the order dated 13.12.2005 expeditiously, in accordance with law, as early as possible preferably within a period of two months from the dated of receipt of a copy of this order. " Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the respondents did not comply the aforesaid order passed by this Court. therefore. the petitioners had to file this contempt petition. Reply on behalf of respondents have been tiled. ln reply of respondents 1 & 2 i.e. Collector. Rajnandgaon and Municipal Commissioner. a copy of the earlier order dated 13.4.2004 passed in Writ Petition No. 2076/2001 by the Division Bench of this Court has been tiled. The said writ petition was tited by the present petitioners. The Division Bench of this Court disposed ot the said writ petition by passing the following orders in Paras- 0, 7 & 8: “t5. A perusal of the above facts shows that some civil litigation was pending between the State Government and one Purshottam (predecessor in title of the petitioners) regarding the title of the land in question- and as per the averments of the petitioners the civil suit and appeals were decided in favour of said Purshottam, therefore. he became the full owner of the land in question. from whom the petitioners purchased the land in question but the respondents/State have given the said land on lease to some private persons in the year 1983. though in the year 19813 as per Annexures A/1 and A/2 the petitioners purchased the land from‘ Purshottam. Thus, it is apparent that when the land was purchased by the petitioners, it was in possession of some other person or in the possession of Purshottam and the possession of the land was not handed over to the petitioners. 7. in view of the above facts no writ can be issued to the State Govt. for handing over the possession of the land % Contmnpt Patiiion N0. 61 0f2008 in queation which is said to be in possession of some othei' person m whom the State Govt. has) granted iease in the year 1983. The disputed facts are involved in this peiition which cannot be gone into the writ iurisdiction. 8. As per the petitioners averments made in the writ petition their predecessor in title filed a suit against the State Govt. which was confirmed up to the High Conn therefore the proper remedy for the petitioners is to approach the civii Court for execution of the decree or for hanoiing over of the possession or to approach the Revenue Authorities in aocordance with law, thus other equally efficacious remedy is available to the petitioners to approach the civil Court for execution of the decree.“ it appears that after disposai of the said writ petition by the Division Bench, the petitioners did not fiied a civil suit as per the observation in the said order and have hied the Writ petition (G) No. 51 89/2007. in the order dated 13.12.2005 passed by the Coliector, Rajnandgaon, it was directed that the vacant houses which have been constructed in Pandit Dindayal Upadhyav Nagar Chikhi. Kanchanbagh should be positively allotted to the oonoerned persons within a week and compliance report should be submitted by Tehsildar and Municipal Commissioner. The oontents of Paraut of Annexure—C/G dated 22.19.2007 would show that in compliance of the order dated 13.12.2005 passed by the Collector, the houses were distributed and allotted by the concerned authorities on 30.9.2007. Mr. ED. Guru, learned counsel for respondent No.1, submits that the representation tiled by the petitioners was also disposed of. the information about which is contained in last Para of order/memo dated 22.1 0.2007. in view of the above facts and circumstances, there does not appear to be any willful default in compiiance of the order dated 27m of August, 2007 passed by this Court. The petition has no merit, the same is liable to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed at the motion stage itsetf. Sd/— aunt! Kumar Sinha Judge vatt’i