>l- <-^fiAl<fc,:a> ..),<. » Bii,:: 1»1-\vvx HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR '(7 £7 CONTEMPT PETITION No. 133 of 2004 (Arisine out ofW.P.No.968 of 2001) PETITIONER RESPONDENTS 1. Digreelal, son of Tukaram Patel, aged about 36 years. 2. Tukaram son ofBhagatram Patel, aged about 70 years, 3. Thaherain son of Bhagatram Patel, aged about 63 years, 4. Babulal son of Thaheram Patel, aged about 33 years, 5. Bhawani Shankar Choudhary, son of Samser Singh Choudhary, All residents of village Padigaon, Tahsil SE District Raigarh (Chhattisgarh). Versus 1 State of Chhattisgarh, through Secretaty, Revenue Department, D.K. Bhawan, Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 2 Coinmissioner (Revenue), Bilaspur (C.G) (Now abolished) 3 Shri R.S. Vishwakarma, Collector, Raigarh (C.G). 4. Shri S.N. Rathore, Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue), Raigarh (C.G). 5. Shri Surendra Kumar Singh, son of late Chakradhar Singh, r/o village Padigaon, Tahsil and District Raigarh (C.G). 6. Devendra Pratap Singh @ Baba, aged about 38 years, s/o surendra Kumar Singh, No.5 8s 6 are R/o Motimahal, Rajapara, Raigarh (C.G) 7. Pitatumba @ Santram, aged about 55 years, S/o Parsu 8. Navin Dutta, aged about 28 years, s/o Pitatuinba, 9. Ravi Bani, aged about 30 years, s/o / '•V ContemptPetitionNo.133 of2004 Jairam Bani 10. Faganu Ganda, aged about 48 years, s/o Kalah 11. Radhe, aged about 29 years, s/o Dayalu, No.7 to 11 are residents of village Padigaon, Tahsil and District Raigarh Note :- Names of respondents 1 & 2 and 6 to 11 deleted vide Court order dated 27.02.2007. 6 Appearance : Mr. B.L. Dembra, counsel for the Petitioners. Mr. Vivek Ranjan Tiwari, counsel for respondents 3 85 4 (concerned Collector SE Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue). Mr. Sachin Tamrakar, counsel for respondent no.5 nameiy Surendra Kumar Singh. ORALORDER (04.11.20091 SUNIL KUMAR SINHA, J. Heard on admission. The petitioners have filed this petition for initiadon of proceedings of contempt on the ground that the Collector and Sub- Divisional Officer (respondents 3 85 4) and Surendra Kukar Singh (respondent no.5) have violated the order dated 21.6.2001 passed in W.P.No.968/2001 by this Court. By the said order dated 21.06.2001, this Court has directed that if the petitioners are in possession till passing of the said order, status quo as regards possession, shall be maintained as was existing on the said date and consequently the order passed by the Collector in Revenue Cases, referred to in the said order, shall remain stayed. Mr. Derabra submits that even after passing of the order for reversion of the land u/s 170 of the Land Revenue Code by the Sub- Divisional Officer, the possession of the land was not taken away from A I 1 Contemut Petition No.133 of2004 the petitioners and the petitioners are in possession of the land till today. However, he submits since the petitioners were apprehending their dispossession on the acts of respondent no.5, therefore, they had to initiate the proceedings of contempt and this contempt petition was filed. Be that as it niay, since the proceedings of contempt cannot be initiated on mere apprehension of a party, I am of the opinion that the matter should be dropped, at this stage. Accordingly, Contempt petition No. 133 of 2004 filed by the petitioners is dropped, at this stage. ;„ . Sd/- _ ' Sunil Kumar Sinha Judge ':i,^ s