^.t. ;C—78 ^^05 T^ ^WW^, ^^WW^^W^ ^^...C.es^....^^....^.M^^ 'W^fT ^R?^""-----—"--^•"^.. 3T^?r I??I?T ('^{3^^) ^Ti^T^Tf^N? ^F^T W^? ^Rte I^tW ^rft^ 3T?t^T ^iNfeT^N W^ff ^f^^ T^f^T? ^at^T 317^1 PETITiONER: RESPONDENT: CONTEMNOR (Petition underArticle 215 oftheCorjstitution oflndia read with Section 12 ofthe Contems Sinale Bench: Hon'bl 5-1-2009:- Shri G.S. Agrawal, Sr. Advoc^ the petitioner. The petitioner by the instantj proceedlng agasnst the respondent fc|! 25-6-2007 passed inWP(C) No.3498| Shri Gauri Shankar AgrawalJ Rati Minj, Advocate appearing for th^ the respondent was dlrected to ensu^ submitting the report for permission Kartik Ram Sahu, aged about 61 years, S/o Jagannathya Sahu, R/o Viilage Mohtara P.C. No.26, Tahsil Bhileigarh, District Raipur (CG) ^/ersus- Mr. Rajmani Bora, District Coliector, Raipur, Chhattisgarh rtofCourtsAct) le Shri Dhirendra Mishra. J. ite with Shri Dijman Rati Minj, Advocate for petition has prayed for initiating contempt |r wilifujly not complying with the order dated i07 (Annexure-C/2). learned Seoior Advocate wlth Shri DJiman petitipner submitted that by the above order |e compliance of the orders dated 22-8-2006 (Annexure-C/3) and 4-10-2006 (Arjnexure-C/4) whereby Addltjona! Coilector, Baloda Bazar had transferred the c|ise to the Court of Tehsiidar, Biiaigarh for o se!l the iand. However In violation of the order of the High Court a proceedJn^ has been agajn initiated by the Additlonaj Tehsjldar for the same purpose. Heard. From perusal of the order dat^d 25th June, 2007, it appears that Addjtlonal Coilector, Baioda Bazar directed th^ Tehsildar, Bijaigarh to Nthdraw the matter '-HC—7S ^^[ ^NM4, ^W<H^^, (®{^11^^< CTI^T ^? ti^n^ ^fSH W^T^RW Ban/e ^lP^ff^^tlch •^200 3^?T 1i^PF (^t3^^) l^n^^^rf^ ^II^T 4- ^N?rah ^T^ •<[ fs^ ^f^rc •^r ^lfm 3:ii^i from the Court of Naib Tehsiidar, as i not in accordance with Section 30 oft Despite the above order, Naib Tehsil was taken by the higher authorities. directed to ensure co.mpliance of th^ tetion taken by Naib Tehsiidar, Bhatgaon was the Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code, ^959. jdar prweeded with the matter and no action In these drcumstances, the resporidenf v^^as order dated 22-8-2006 (Annexure-C/3) and 4-10-2006 (Annexure-C/4). From perusai of the order c|f Annexure-C/5, it appeare that Tehslldar, JnitEatlon of contem.pt proceeding is dismissed and it is hereby dismissed Bilaigarh has submltted his reportj mentioning therein the objection aga| above report, the Additiooal Col!ec| j3etltioner as weil as the proposed pur|: There is nothing on record to sjiow that the respondent has wiilfuliy vioiated the order dated 25-6-2007 (Annexu4-C/2). Accordjngly, the instant petition for to the AdditJonal Coiiector through SDO |nst the transfer of iand» After receiving the |3f has djrected issuance of ootjce to the "fchaser., ^ithout any basis, the same desen/es to be it the admission stage jtself',. pbi^Ja^a lud^