1 S.B.Civil Contempt Petition NO.227/2004 in S.B.Civil Writ Petition NO.1829/1996 Inder Singh vs Suraj Mal & Anr. DATE OF ORDER : - 22.2.2005 HON'BLE MR. PRAKASH TATIA,J. Mr. Sudesh Kumar Gupta, for the petitioner. <><><> The contempt petition has been filed by the petitioner alleging that the orders of this court dated 28th July, 1992 and 20th August, 1998 have not been complied with by the respondents. It appears from the order dated 28th July, 1992 that the writ petition of the petitioner was allowed and the orders dated 8th April, 1974 (Annex.1) and 2nd Dec., 1987 (Annex.2) respectively were set aside by this Court. This court also made it clear by order dated 20th August, 1998 that respondent State Government shall have opportunity to recover the due amount from the petitioner, if any amount is due, by following the procedure. This court after taking note of the petitioner’s contention that he has paid the entire dues, on the basis of the statement of learned counsel for the respondent directed the petitioner to make representation to the respondents within a period of one month from the date of order. The respondents were directed to decide the 2 representation of the petitioner within a period of two months from the date of order. The respondents were further restrained from recovering any amount from the petitioner unless the representation of the petitioner is decided. The grievance of the petitioner is that the land in question is not being regularized in the name of the petitioner. No such direction was issued in either of the order. Apart from it, this present contempt petition has been filed by the petitioner after almost 14 years, therefore, the contempt petition deserves to be dismissed on this count alone. However, it may be observed that in case, the petitioner has any grievance against the respondents on account of the fact that the petitioner’s allotment of land which was cancelled by the authorities, has been cancelled by this court, then for that purpose, the petitioner may approach the concerned authorities, but no case is made out of disobedience of the order of this court. In view of the above, the contempt petition of the petitioner is dismissed. (Prakash Tatia), J. C.P.Goyal/-