This is a contempt petition alleging non-compliance with prior orders. The respondents filed an affidavit claiming no contempt due to pending demarcation proceedings. The court accepted the respondent statement and closed the petition.
Rule issued discharged and the contempt petition closed following respondents' affidavit filing.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
1
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
Contempt Case (C) No. 9 of 201 6
Madhubhan Grih Nirman Cooperative Society, a society registered under the provisions of the Chhattisgarh Cooperative Societies Act, 1960 having its registration No.127, registered office at Near Good Luck Plastic Factory, Santoshi Nagar, Tikra Para, Raipur (C.G.), through its Manager, Bhushan Khandekar, S/o Suresh Khandekar , aged about 29 years, R/o Avanti Vihar, Raipur, Tahsil & District Raipur (C.G.)
---- Petitioner
Versus
…. .Contemnors
---- Respondents
For Petitioner : Mr. Malay Shrivastava, Advocate. For Respondents No. 1 to 3 : Mr. Pankaj Agrawal, Advocate.
Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal
Order On Board
0 1 /09 /2016
(1) Alleging that the respondents have not complied with the orders and directions issued by this court in W.P.(C) No. 1394/2014 dated 23.07.2014, the petitioner is before this court in this contempt petition.
(2) Operative portion of the order complained of dated 23.07.2014 reads as under:-
2
“Taking into consideration the aforesaid statement, this petition, at this stage, can be disposed off with the direction that respondent shall carry out demarcation after giving a notice of date, time and place and thereafter, it would be open for the Corporation to take appropriate action under the law depending upon the report of demarcation.
It goes without saying that no action would be taken against the petitioner pursuant to the impugned order unless in the fresh demarcation report any encroachment is disclosed.
Accordingly, the petition is disposed of.”
(2) Return has been filed on behalf of respondents No. 1 to 3 and in paragraph 2 of the return a categorical statement has been made by the respondents No. 1 to 3, which reads as under:-
“2. It is further submitted that there are two gates situated in Madhuban Grih Nirman Society and the gate for which order was passed by this Hon'ble Court has not been demolished till date and Tahsildar Raipur in compliance of order dated 23.07.2014 passed an order on 19.12.2014 by constituting committee for demarcation report, which is still pending, copy of letter dated 16.01.2016 written by Zone Commissioner, Zone No. 3 to Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue), Raipur is being filed herewith as Annexure R-8, therefore no contempt has been committed by the answering respondent and the contempt petition is liable to be dismissed.”
(3) This affidavit was filed on 29.02.2016 but no rejoinder affidavit has been filed and, therefore, this Court has no other option except to accept the statement of respondents No. 1 to 3.
(4) In view of the affidavit filed by the respondents No. 1 to 3, the contempt petition is closed. Rule issued is discharged.
(Sanjay K. Agrawal) Judge
3
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the contempt petition is maintainable when respondents claim pending demarcation.
Madhubhan Grih Nirman Cooperative Society
S.K. Rathore
Harender Sahu
Yogesh Kadu
L.K. Sharma
Sanjay K. Agrawal
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
