Dismissed

Krishna Kumar Tiwari v. Shri Kirtiman Rathour

Chhattisgarh HC2 Apr 2019CONT/67/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Chhattisgarh closed a contempt petition filed against a Sub-Divisional Officer for alleged non-compliance of a previous order. The Court held that the petitioner's remedy lies in filing an application under Section 64 of the Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013. The contempt rule was discharged.

What did the court decide?

Contempt petition closed; Rule against the contemnor discharged.

Krishna Kumar Tiwari Vs Shri Kirtiman Rathour — Land Acquisition | Chhattisgarh HC (2019)

¶1

¶2

NAFR

¶3

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶4

CONT No. 67 of 2019

¶5

Krishna Kumar Tiwari S/o Late Shri Laxmi Prasad Tiwari, aged about 55 years, R/o Village Bharari (Wia Ganiyari) P.S. Kota Tahsil Takhatpur Distt. Bilaspur (C.G.)

¶6

---Petitioner

¶7

Versus

¶8

Shri Kirtiman Rathour, aged about 50 years, The Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue)/Land Acquisition Officer, Kota Distt. Bilaspur CG

¶9

		---- Respondent
For Petitioner	:	Mr. Vipin Tiwari, Advocate
For Respondent/Contemnor	:	Mr. AnupMajumdar,Advocate

¶10

Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal Order on Board

¶11

02/04/2019

¶12

This contempt petition has been filed alleging non-compliance of the order dated 23/07/2018 passed by this Court in W.P.(C) 2010 of 2018.

¶13

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the order complained of has not been complied with substantially and it has been flouted willfully.

¶14

Learned counsel for the respondent/contemnor submits that the remedy of the petitioner is to file application under Section 64 of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (henceforth, 'Act of 2013').

¶15

I have heard learned counsel for the parties, considered their rival submissions and went through the records with utmost circumspection.

¶16

¶17

It appears from the records that petitioner's representation has been considered and decided and it has already been held that the remedy of the petitioner is to file application under Section 64 of the Act of 2013.

¶18

In view of the aforesaid observations, the contempt petition is closed. However, Petitioner is at liberty to proceed further in accordance with law. Rule issued against the contemnor is discharged.

¶19

Sd/-

¶20

(Sanjay K. Agrawal) Judge

¶21

Pawan

Krishna Kumar Tiwari v. Shri Kirtiman Rathour

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Krishna Kumar Tiwari v. Shri Kirtiman Rathour

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/s Parle Biscuits Ltd. And Ors. Vs State Of Chhattisgarh And Anr.

In The Matter Suo Motu Contempt Case Vs Commissioner Municipal Corporation Bilaspur

Smt. Nirmala Singh Rajput Vs State Of Madhya Pradesh (Now Chhattisgarh)

Chaman Lal Verma Vs State of Chhattisgarh and Ors.

Ranjeet Satnami Vs State Of Chhattisgarh and Ors.

Thakur Nirmal Singh and Ors. Vs Central Bureau of Investigation and Ors.