uM THfiHIGH C01 'cy, "•s'^.-^^r ]??•„. A ^i.<^<jl-i*-t<jtA ^i.1. .^i^^^tU (CHHATTISGARH1 ContemptCase (C) No. ^J?J /2011. (Arising out of ordp^dated 20.04. 11 passed in writ petition (S) No. 2662/2008 by Honlsle High Court.) M PETITIONER: ^Ainbika Prasad Dewangan, son of Late ^ ^,,1^ Dwarika Nath Dewangan, aged about .-••ff' .v'" ...•• 44 years, residence of Baigapara, Nea .a^.^ o^^^r ^^^/:vv '^y '^^•: ...••"\ ?<y'.y / Respondents: (Conteinnorsl: Near SHitla Mandir, Durg, Chhattisgarh. Versus . i. -k-^. Pi'5Jc\ <s^A Director, Lok Shikshan Sanchanalaya, Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 2. B.L.Kurre, District Education Officer, Durg, Chhatdsgarh. 3. Q.A.Khan, Land Acquisition Ofiicer/ Sub Divisional Officer, Durg, Chhattisgarh. CONTEMPT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 215 OF THE CONSTITUTIQNOFINDIA READ WITH SECTION 12 OF THE CONTEMPT OF COURTS ACT. ^nwsr sh*ii<t> -3-5ET "i]|^H<1), yal-a'iw, Isiciiy1),? Co4S<fr") ..CaA:.^.'3.S.L^.\\.... WI 200 \~^ Sf^S W K'W'h "wr 3^?r s»i*iicT> ar^i Tra^ (l°iid»(<tT) ^mwdftaan^t 15.12.2011 wfllful disobedience of ordi CourtinW.P. (C) No. 2662y Leamed counsel for expiry of period of fi.ve mon vacated nor fhe land acquisition proceedmgs. ^ir:'ifei7N 'cnwifT'^^ ifa^it "S;3ffin3iit?i a Mohan Shrivastava. J. Shri O. P. Sahu, cou^isel for ttie petitioner Heard on admissfon. This contempt petitic^a has been filed by fhe petitioner aUegm^ >r dated 20th April, 2011 passed by tfais 2008. fh.e petitioner submits fhat even after chs from. fhe date ofreceipt offhe copy of the order passed inW.P. (q) No.2662/08, neither fhe land has been ^cquisition oflicer has initiated land Virtule disposing of Qjp wnt petition, this Court observed fhat respondents No. 2 & 3 wil| the school wifhia a reasorfeble ti.me and in case the school is not shifted wifhin a period of petitioner, fhe period of six take decisioa with regard to shifting of ^ix monfhs, the land acquisiUon ofScer sKall take steps as directep by the Courfc. Even, accoi-duig to the monfhs has expired on 7th of November, 2011 and ftiereaffcer, fhe p^titioner submitted representation to fhe land acquisition of&cer on 11/11. ^ "'""*'XI-HC—78 Laxmi -g^r "4Mi<?i^,0Ttl.H' , f^rey __....(2s^..:...^3.h.o}L \^ ^1*<dl «hw«h T^. 200 sn^r "ra^ ('i^'i^) aforebald months Considering fhe instead of issuing notice expiry of period of six an obUgation to take steps| shaU approach fhe land ai one week from the date < petitioner, the land acqiiisi written as to whether steps the Court. The petitioner shaU eventualitv so arises. ^iNwih lircft if fetz> ifitMR '^3ifilH3(I^T facts and circuinstances of the case, 1^> respondents, it is observed fhat after >, fhe land acquisiUon officer is under |as directed by the Coiirt. The petitioner j;quisition officer and wifhin a period of |»f submission of representation by fhe •i(ion oflacer shaU. inform the petitioner in have been taken by him. as directed by t}e entitled to revive fhe petition in case Wifh the aforesaid observations, tfae petiti.cn is EnaUy disposed of. Sd/- Manindra Mohan Shrivastava Judge