•Ssw • '•".^r-'. '•'•:. IN THE HO *B&S HIQH COU&T-Or CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR •{ •&•••!. S.. •: it-{: f, a: ^••^.-••^i^.A:^. ii"'H; t;^,»;- GONTaiPT PETITION N0. ) °1/2004 APPLXCSNT ..^ ^s^- ^.yy&.k-i'rk..'' yy^t'^\ ^^f^" ^^•'^.- ^'^.. •' l\.^\ ••'' VERSUS <v*,iP ^ . NON-APPLIC&NT. i Shiv Shafakar ShuM.a-S/o. late Rainatb Shukla, aged about 66 years, Agricul- turisfe and Gontractor, R/o. Village Kunwra, Tah. Nawagarh, District Durg (C.G*). ; APPELLANT IN S.A* 177/2002. The State o£ Ghbattisgarh Through - Colleetor, Burg (C*S.) RESPONDENT IN S.A. 177/2002 CIVIL GONTEMPT PETXTION U/S 12-14 OP SHE COHrEMPT OE- OOQRT ACT 1971. ' The appll.cant begs to state as under s— XI-HC-22 3^';?R1WT, WteTO, Rlcrtl'My 3n^?rV^K ••IIWWI Sb'HT^—.C^^(?lhk1^ -No' lol/OL) W( 200 SD^T^iT I^TRiSIT^T NiBf?cf SPiRig 3<1^1 (telimafsiT StjKlItlAf! WIHMl'ft' fe^t' tRti<l< i)3l1^R'5II^T 25.04.2005 Shri M.K-Bhaduri, counse) Shri JD Bajpai, applicant. Heard on admissl substitution/bringing the name^ Tahsildar in Revenue c4 on 19.05.1986 against the peti^ in which house and Ara machin4 land belongs to the Sovernmenl petitioner. The petitioner, bearing No,90-A/91 for against •the State Soverninen^ Judgment and decree dated and decree, petitioner prefer^ A/1995. The appelkte Court- Court, dismissed the appea| 30.04.2002. Againstthat appellate Court-, Second appe41 before the High Court. This| for •the petitioner. ©overnkientAdvocate for the State / Non- ijon and I.A.No.2589/04 for of the Collector in the case record. jse No.l7-A/68-85-86passed aai order rioner directing him to vdcate the land has been instalted by him, os the said ond has been encroachedupon by the cha|llenging the said order filed a Civil suit of title and permanent injunction ernnienh'. The said suit was dismissed vide i.1995. Aggrjevedby that Judgment ^ed an appeal bearin9 .Civil appeal 15- •flprtified the orderspassed by the trial vide Judgment and decree dated Ju^gment and decree passed by the First bearing No.177/2002 has been filed Court on 16/05/2002 direeted the .^ctlW) dechrtition 1402. XI-HC-22 *ll*l^lS»)t<|t») s^ '<<i<ii<n<i,8Tfl»i'is,Rcii'yiy. 3ii^i '.law W( 200 aii^rqn' f^'lNian^r Nidfitr ii?*fl«BW ai^KwiwgftcT <i>i'ut<i<(l»iHii.i?iTff te'4) tRiteiit Siaftrs.n^r I parties to maintain the statu^ it exists today i.e., on 16/0^/ During the pendency ol Officer (DFO) Durg issue<j 03.07.2004 to the petitione^- The said notice was replied 19.07.2004 concelled the lic4nse the same. The petitioner s conte|ition its ordsr dated 16.05.2003 despite that the officidls 0'fl willfully dis-obeyed the sai^l concellation of ticense and (jl State Sovernment through quo with regard to the Ara machine, as j/2002. ,the Second'oppeal, the Divisional Forest a show cause notice No.5098 dated ^ for cancellation of renewal of license. ^y the petitioner. DFO vide order dated of Ara machine and ordered to close offence punishable under cor^tempt of Vide I.A.No.2589/200|4, earlier in the original petitioji, mentioned,therefore,his Section 2 (B) of Conte^npt of Courts Section 2(b) willful disobelfience disobe^ience is that the Hon'ble High Court vide directed to maintain the status quo, Non-applicant / State Sovernment have order and passed an order regarding losing 1he Ara machine and thereby •the the Collector, Durg has comniitted the Courts Act 1971. t, the petitioner has made a prayer that i, the name of the Collector has not been may kindly be brought on record. Act, 1971 readsas below : " "civil contempf means to any Judgment, •ioh nclme '(^tStfeit) ^ - XI-HC-22 ^s^ ••^mvfv, gitflwis, Rjyiiti^ 3ll3l?IHS|ctl ••IIHMI SfttllW W[ 200 SII^T^iT R-ii*gn^?r SifWTlf^tT 3-ll^iilgtdTWBfN t»|i|f?ld'l'<'•imCTl'ft'fet^) lSiftt.tf, &i3i^)T3niyr directi^n. Cdvrt decree, piwcess ofa undertaking give^to Revenue au'rtiorities oi|i machine has been installed proceedings and passed an declaration of title over the dismissed by the trial Court.| judgment and decree ond second appail hdS been prsfdf Ara machine is installed, wh^ the fiovernment is to be d{ removal or to protect his passed the following order or^ "Pafties are dir^ct wilh regard to\ iaday." On query being made counsel for the petitioner f exists on the said land and ithos order, writ or olher or willful breaeh of or 'aCowt:" finding that the land over which Ara b^longs to the ©ovemment,initiated the lorder to that effect. The aiit .for ^aid kind fited by the petitioner has been First appellate Court affirmed the said djsmissed the appeal. Against that, the •red amd is pending. The lcuid over which sther it belongs to the petitioner or to stermined and to save the petitioner s ^ossession, this Court on interim stage 116/05/2002;- ^ciet/ to mctintain status quo Ara machine as it exists d|iring the argument by this Court, tearned :tankly conceded ttiat Ara machine still not been removed from there. •(^tliteft) XI-HC-22 an^T^T f^iraisn^sT SBffWflfBfl Padma ^ \ ,i>'"tf!</; fi.y \'y ••IK-IWI StlWIW SCTHira'RRT, Sitflwi6,Rai'fiy, w^Ttraw "'W^ 200 <3'^ 9<l6i'!Te«11SlTBf?(T *ie This Court has not violation of rules or law, Ard| The order dated 16/05/2002 protect the possession of according to admissipn made Jfcjy the possession still rests nor its officials have djsposse^sed Therefore, the conl and accordingly 1.A Nos.2589,)' ot|dered any of the authorities that in machine Should be allowed to operate. has been passed by this Court to petitioner over the suit lond and thelearned coynsel for the petitioner, him. Neither the State ©overnment the petitioner. petition No.101/2004 is dismissed i'2004 & 2588/2004 stand disposed bf. t^npt <!|j!iifn<fl>i roi?{ffffs^s dwiir ^affiiTaiiST Sd/- V.K. Shrivastava Judge (#t^r) -t.