-^ IN THE HIGH COUftT OF JUDICATURE AT BILASPUR ^CH?-€C(^^ CONTEMPT PeFPFQN N0. ^-^-^ of 2010 IN THE MATTER OF: W.P. (C) No.46/2010 between Petitioner: Manohar Satnami Versus Respondents: State of C.G. Aothers APPLICANT ^s^ k."' Vs Manohar Satnami, aged about 55 years, son of Late Lalji Satnami, resident of Telibandha, Raipur, Tahsiland bistrict Raipur, Chhattisgarh. Pulak Bhattacharya, Tehsildar, Raipur, District Raipur (C<5) RESPONDENT/ Contemnor PETITION ARTICLE 215 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA READ WITH SECTION 12 OF THE CONTEMPT OF COURTS ACT. 1973. sn^T^i R-iich ^ni^r ^)^icb 'H^^ ^sf -4|^ld<LI, ^Tl1y41<o, fa^l-My Sflt^T '^^K <^rv\^ - C^T€_ ^w^rr^bNicb ^.US/Z^Q ^ 200' '^^ST' SB j Hon'ble Shri Manindra Mohar 16-03-2011 Shri K. Sharma, counsel for th' Heard. Learned counsel for the pet| order dated 08-01-2010, Writ Petit petitioner, finally disposed off the rr| Raipur would expedite the hearing irj of October, 2009 passed by the Bo^rd decision in accordance with law. Learned counsel for the peti submits that the spirit of the order expedite the hearing and pass ord^ submitted that for conclusion of mil the proceedings are required to be ^ the Board of Revenue, in the pres^ ^i<^(<n<'flti ^w<vff ^ ft^ <p3i^i< '^^OT^n^T Shrivastava, J. |e petitioner. itioner submitted that this Court vide :ion (C) No.46 of 2010 filed by the latter by observing that the Tehsildar, the matter as per the order dated 13th of Revenue and would take a final ioner argued that even after lapse of one year, final decision has not be^n taken by the Tehsildar, Raipur. He 3f the Court required the Tehsildar to. rs within a reasonable time. tt is also tation proceedings, particularly when, ^oncluded under the orders passed by knt case, the Tehsildar ought to have passed the order expeditiously, butj no final decision has been taken till date. Though, this Court observe(| petition in its order dated 08-01-201(j while finally disposing off the writ that the Tehsildar would expedite the hearing and take final decision in a|:cordance with law, no time limit was fixed. Therefore, at this stage, I ai|n not inclined to issue notice to the respondent. The res^orident shoulcj keep in mind that the orderof the Court for expeditioust|r disposal of the matter requires the authority to [^•^fe^ ,^J;"~^e f"::' '% s^ 1 ''~X^lSC-22.- /.^ 3?T^T'^T Ryii<=h ^n^T 5h^ic^ ^f^a Aj Tumane ^osr ^||^id<LI, ^Ti1<i^(o, faoii^y . c^^Sh^Cc)^:m/7^^ ^................^........v,...........^ ,200 % ^ra^TT^rRT^ ^•^sr' 'STT^T ^^H^R ^tf^T z- decide the matter within a reasohable Raipur should comply with the orde^ its true spirit. If no orders are pass^d petitioner would be at liberty to revivt <=bl^?<v1<fl<1 'RTR^T ^ ft^t <f^^l< '^3:rf^m^?r time. Therefore, the Tehsildar, r of the Court passed on 08-01-2010 in pd within three months from today, the ^ this petition. With the aforesaid observatioh, the petition is finally disposed off. Sd/- IVIanindra Mohan Shrivastava Judge [^ -^fe^