Dismissed

Leelamber Prasad Kashyap v. S. Jayvardhan

Chhattisgarh HC6 Dec 2023CONT/118/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This is a contempt petition challenging the enforcement of an order of status quo in a lease dispute. The court found that the Nazul Officer had conducted a survey, prepared a Panchnama confirming no construction, and issued a specific order of status quo, hence dismissing the contempt plea against the respondents.

What did the court decide?

The instant contempt petition against the respondents is dismissed.

Leelamber Prasad Kashyap Vs S. Jayvardhan — Contempt of Court | Chhattisgarh HC (2023)

¶1

-1-

¶2

NAFR

¶3

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

¶4

CONT No. 118 of 2022

¶5

Leelamber Prasad Kashyap S/o Shri Shyamlal Kashyap Aged About 53 Years R/o Lig- 10, Housing Board Colony, Boirdadar Road, Raigarh, District- Raigarh (C.G.) ---- Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

1. S. Jayvardhan Posted As Commissioner, Muncipal Corporation, Raigarh, District- Raigarh (C.G.).

¶8

2. Nityanand Upadhyay Building Officer, Municipal Corporation, Raigarh, DistrictRaigarh (C.G.).

¶9

3. Rohit Kumar Singh Nazul Officer, Raigarh, District- Raigarh (C.G.).

¶10

4. Smt. Ratna Gupta W/o Rajendra Gupta, R/o Shahid Chowk, Raigarh, Tahsil And District- Raigarh (C.G.).

¶11

5. Smbit Mishra Posted As Commissioner, Municipal Corporation Raigarh, District Raigarh Chhattisgarh.

¶12

6. D. C. Ramesh Mour Nazul Officer, Raigarh, District Raigarh Chhattisgarh.

¶13

7. Ashok Sahu the Revenue Inspector (Nazul), Shet No. 58, Raigarh, District - Raigarh Chhattisgarh. ---- Respondents

¶14

(Cause Title is taken from Case Information System)

¶15

For Petitioner : Mr. R. S. Patel, Advocate with Mr. Palash Agrawal, Advocate

¶16

For Respondents No.1 & 5 : Dr. Sudeep Agrawal, Advocate

¶17

For Respondent No.3 : Mr. Shashvat Gupta, Advocate holding the brief of Mr. Chandresh Shrivastava, Advocate For Respondent No.4 : Mr. Rajendra Tripathi, Advocate

¶18

Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board

¶19

06.12.2023

¶20

1. This contempt petition has been filed against the order dated 02.12.2021 passed in Writ Petition (C) No. 4820/2021 wherein the order of status quo was granted

¶21

-2-

¶22

and parties were directed to maintain the status quo until the next date of hearing.

¶23

1. It appears that there was a dispute between the petitioner and respondent No.4Smt. Ratna Gupta to the effect that she was raising construction over plot No.64/1, area 500 sq. ft. without obtaining due permission from the Municipal Corporation, Raigarh.

¶24

1. The petitioner and respondent No.4 applied for a grant of the lease but before the issuance of a valid lease in favour of either party, respondent No.4 started raising construction over the disputed land, therefore, a petition was filed before this Court seeking therein a direction to the Nazul Officer to restrain respondent No.4 from raising construction over the disputed land, and to not issue lease deed in favour of respondent No.4, and to take a final decision on applications moved by both the parties. This Court vide order dated 02.12.2021 in WPC No. 4820 of 2021 passed an order of status quo.

¶25

1. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that though there was an order of status quo, respondent No.4 was raising construction over the disputed land, and in this regard a complaint was made before the competent authorities, but no action was taken. He would further submit that the order passed by this Court was communicated to the respondent authorities on 22.12.2022. He would also submit that it was a bi-party order, still, no steps were taken by the contemnor/respondents No.1 to 3 against respondent No.4 and thus, a clear contempt is made out against respondents No.1 to 3 and respondent No.4.

¶26

1. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respondents would submit that an order of status quo was passed by this Court in WPC No.4820 of 2021 on 02.12.2021, whereas, the order was intimated to the authorities on 22.12.2021, after 20 days. It is further submitted that a panchnama was

¶27

-3-

¶28

prepared by the Nazul Officer and according to it, no construction has been raised by respondent No.4 after 02.12.2021 and a suitable order was issued by the Nazul Officer to maintain the status quo to the parties on 30.12.2021; thus, they would submit that the respondent authorities have not flouted the order passed by this Court.

¶29

1. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the documents present on record.

¶30

1. From a perusal of documents, it appears that applications were moved by the petitioner and respondent No.4 for grant of the lease before Nazul Officer and the same was pending, during that period, respondent No.4 started raising construction, thereafter, aforesaid petition was filed before this Court and order of status quo was passed and the parties were directed to maintain status quo, thereafter, after receipt of the order of this Court, the Nazul Officer conducted a survey, prepared a Panchnama and according to it, no construction was raised by respondent No.4 after 02.12.2021; further, the Nazul Officer issued a specific order of status quo and the petitioner as well as respondent No.4 was restrained from raising construction over the disputed land.

¶31

1. Taking into consideration, the subsequent development, the survey conducted; the Panchnama prepared; and the specific order of status quo issued by the Nazul Officer, no case of contempt is made out against the respondents. Accordingly, the instant petition is hereby dismissed.

¶32

Sd/-

¶33

(Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge

¶34

Nadim

Leelamber Prasad Kashyap v. S. Jayvardhan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Leelamber Prasad Kashyap v. S. Jayvardhan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shekhar Agrawal Vs Harihar

Ravindranath Tiwari (Dead) Vs Sunil Jaiswal

Smt. Lovedhi Yadav Vs Lukeshwar Kumar Yadav

Smt. Lachhani Bai and Anr. Vs Ceo,Cg. Electricity Board and Anr.

(Deleted) Rajendra Prasad Dubey,(Died) Through Lrs Vs Alok Kumar

Deleted (Harish Chand) (Died) Vs Vasant Kumar