mawv w q, ‘ V, wwrw/ * IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BILA§PUR CHHATTISGARH .SINGLE BENCH 1 ‘ , x .éI CONTEMPT PETITION No. [2005 Hon'ble S.B. / :1. Bhagwantin Bai, PETITIONERS D / o Sawant Gond Aged about 5O years W/o Mohan Gond f 2. Radho Bai’@ Raj Bai D/o Sawant Gond aged about 45 years W/o Mangal Gond 3. Birajo Bai [Iv D / o Sawant Gond aged about 40 years W/o Panchham Gond @ Pancham Gond A11 the R/o Junwani Tah. 85 Distt. Kawardha VERSUS Contemners RESPONDENTS :1. Mani Ram, aged abou‘E 60 years VS/o F’agooa Marar ' Occupation-agriculture R/o Chhirah, P.S. Tah. 85 Distt. Kawardha' 2. Hirday Nath, aged about 55 years S’/,o Gajpati Nath L7 Occupation-agriculture R/ o Tiwari Nayagaon P.S. Tah. 85 Distt. Kawardha /J M/w— w 4. Shri Pradip Mishra Q7 Sub Divisional Officer Distt. Kawardha 5. Superintendent of Police £7 Kawardha Distt. Kawardha CONTEMPT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 2‘13 OF THE’ COESTITUTION OF INDIA AND SECTION 12 OF THE N ,W, /(\.!V5“ WW 7 7 CONTEMPT 7, OF COURTS ACT 7 , <. k MILL...‘ ‘ 7 ,W W, 3W$ ‘f // 2// 3 Shri S.K; Tiwari Q , MW My) WW _0. ' . CollectorLKawardha QS w Tah. 8L Distt. m??? SB ' Hon’ble Shri Manindra Mohan Shrivastava. J 16-93-2011 Shri Aman Kesharwani. counse! on behaif of Shri FSKhare, counsel for the petitioners. . $hri Pankaj Agrawal, counsei for respondems 1 and 2. Dr. N.K.Shukia, $enior Counsei aiong with Ms. Ritu Mishra. counsel for the respondent No.4. This contempt petition has ineen fried by the petitioner aiieging violation of order dated 23/3/2001 which stated that — "it is contended that by means of Annexures - A12 and N3-the orders of the Coilector, the petitioner has n in possession of the land in question. lf_ that be so, status quo as on ths day, shall be maintained as regards the possession of the land." The submission of teamed ounsel for the petitioners is that on the date, the order was passed by the C urt. the petitioners were in actuat physical possession of the land in dispute and therefore. their possession coutd not be disturbed and status quo was dire ed to be maintained but respondent No.1 and 2 started interfering with their po ession upon which, a comptaint was made, but while making an enquiry in the ompiaint. respondent No.4 has confirmed the possession of respondent No.1 d 2 which is highiy contemptuous and an attempt to overreach the orders a d proceedings of this Court. He submits that documents Annexure A/t, A/2 an A/3 show that on the date of passing the order by the Court, the petitioners ere in possession. On the other hand, learne counsel for the respondents 1, 2 as also teamed counset for respondent No 4 submitted that this Court did not record any finding as to who was in possessi n of the iand in dispute on the date, interim order dated 23/3/t3'i was pass . Learned counset for respondent No.4 submitted that the petitioners had ubmitted complaint on 11/11/04 upon which, [ma am b e n e mmmw ch the respondent No.4 found as a tact that it is respondent No.1 and 2 who re in physicai possession of the iand by virtue of order dated 3i3i2000 pass by the Additionai Commissioner, Raipur. He aiso found that in Khasra Panch haia, the name of respondent No.1 and 2 were recotded as occupants in resp ct of the year ‘IQQQ-ZGOO, 2000411. Zim- 02, 2002-03. It was aiso found that ven by virtue of order dated 3/3I'2DGO, the names of respondent No.1 and 2 wer entered in the revenue records. This Court had recorded the contention of the pet'rtioner that he is in r pqssession but there was no s Despii the Coiiector directed the respondent 0.4 to make an enquiry and submit report. Thereafier, respondent No.4 issued n tice to Nayab Tahsiidar along with his staff on 26/11/04, in order to ascen‘ain th correct factual position with regard to the possession and the substance of th complaint. Notices were issued to the Tahsiidar as aiso to the petitioners d respondents. Thereafter, statements were recorded and after consideri the records and statements, report was submitted vide Annexure R-4/4, in fic finding that the petitioners were in possession of the iand. it appears t at when the petitioners ciaimed that they were in possession, the Collector or ered enquiry to be‘ made, in pursuance of which, respondent No.4 conducted ailed enquiry, in which it was found that respondent No.1 and 2 were in poss sion of the iand in dispute. in this view of the matter, it ca not be said that respondents No.1, 2 and 4 are guiity of viotation of orders pas ed by this Court. The enquiry has been made by respondent No.4 in bonafld discharge of his duties. Therefore, in the opinion of this Court, no contempt c n be said to have heen committed by the respondents. Rute is therefore disch rged. The petition is hnaiiy disposed off. Sd/—‘ s ,, Judge M, Manindra Mohan Shrivastava i p n n. i e e t