HIOH COURT OF CHHATTISOARH, BILASPUR Contempt Case (Cl No. 282 ot 2008 PETITIONERS 1. Raj Kumar Modi S/o Shri Shantl Lal Modi, aged about 47 yeare, Occupation- Agrteidturist, R/o Village- Atari, Tahsil & District Raipur (Chhattisgarh) At present Samta Colony, Raipur (Chhattisgarh) 2. Santosh Kumar Gupta S/o Shri Munna Lal Gupta, aged about 45 years, R/o Village Atari, Tahsil and District Raipur (Chhattisgarh) Versus '—^, RESPONDENTS 1. Anil Sonl, Divisional Forest Offteer, Contemnors Raipur Van Mandal, Raipur (Chhattisgarh) 2. R.S. Mishra, Sub DMsional Offteer (Forest), Raipur, (n-charge of Nandanvan, Raipur, District Raipur (Chhattisgarh) (Contempt Petition under Article 21fi> of the Constitution o¥India read with Sections 10 & 12 ofthe ContomDt ofCourts Act. 1971) Appearance: Mr. Sanjay K. Agrawal, Advocate forthe petlttoners. Mr. Yashwant Singh Thakur, Advocate for the respondents. ^OiAL:,ORDiR (16.02.2010) SUNIL KUMAR SINHA. J. Heard. Petitioners have flled this petitlon for initiation of proceedings of contempt for the alleged violation of the order dated 30.10.2007 passed by this Court in W.P.(C) No. 6553/2007. This Court, while issuing the notice to the respondents passed the following order on 30.10.2007:- "Shri Sanjay K. Agrawal, counsel for the petitioners. Shri Vinay Harit, Deputy Advocate General, I appears and accepts notice on behalf of the State. ^ Rule re-notice. Contemot Case (C) No. 282 of 2008 Issue notice to the respondents, in accordance with rules, returnable on 5th December 2007. In the meantime, no coercive steps shall be taken hereinafter, subsequent to notification under Section 4 of the Act, 1894 (Annexure P/6) and the same shail be subject to decision of this Court." Mr. Yashwant Singh Thakur, learned counsd appearingon behalf of the respondents, submits that the reply on behalf of respondents has been fited and it has been contended vide Para- 4 & 5 of the reply that the wall constructed encompassing the plantation has been construc^ed on govemment land and not a single bnck has been laid down on ttie land of the petitioners. He submits that vide Para-5 of the reply, it has been categorically stated that according to Patwari report, in fact, no construction works is being carried out on the land of the petitloners and the copy of the report has been filed as Annexure-R/4. In view of the above categorical statement of respondents 1 & 2 on their separate affidavft, the proceedings for contempt, are dropped at this stage. However, the petitioners would be at liberty to inltiate other proceedings, if such an exigency arises In future. The Contempt Case (C) No. 282/2008 stands flnalty disposed of. Sd/- Sunii Kumar Sinha Judge {