Virendra Kanwar Vs Rajesh Sukumar Toppo

¶1

1

¶2

2025:CGHC:18673

¶3

NAFR

¶4

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶5

MCC No. 188 of 2025

¶6

Virendra Kanwar S/o Late Shri Het Ram Kanwar Aged About 44 Years (Age And Fathers Name Of Petitioner Not Mentioned In The Impugned Order), Posted As Executive Engineer, Water Resource Survey And Barrage (Wrongly Spelled As Bairaj) In The Impugned Order) Construction Division No. 1, Kharsiya District- Raigarh, Chhattisgarh

¶7

... Petitioner versus

¶8

1 - Rajesh Sukumar Toppo, Secretary Water Resouce Department Mantralaya Mahanadi Bhawan, Raipur, Naya Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh

¶9

2 - Indra Jeet Uike, Engineer In Chief, Shivnath Bhawan, Naya Raipur, District- Raipur Chhattisgarh

¶10

3 - D.K. Bhumerkar, Chief Engineer, Mini Mata Bango Project, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh.

¶11

4 - Baleshwar Ram Sub Divisional Officer Cum Land Acquisition Officer, Dabhara, Sakti, District-Sakti,Chhattisgarh

¶12

5 - Abhay Ram Patel S/o Motiram Patel R/o Village Basantpur, Tehsil Dabhara, Sakti, District- Sakti Chhattisgarh

¶13

... Respondents For Petitioner : Mr. Anup Majumdar, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mr. Sudeep Agrawal, Advocate appears along with Mr. Kamal Kishore, Advocate and Ms. Apurva Nigam, Advocate

¶14

(Hon’ble Shri Justice Arvind Kumar Verma)

Order on Board

2

24.04.2025

This MCC has been filed for restoration/recalling of Contempt Case No. 1355 of 2024 passed by this court vide order dated 27.11.2024

¶19

which was disposed of with the following directions:-

¶20

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case. Since the submission has been made by learned counsel for the respondents that they will make the payment within a period of 45 days from today, the contempt petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondents to comply the order of this court within a period of 45 days from today. Rule is discharged.

¶21

However, it is made clear that if the amount is not disbursed within the specified time period, the petitioner would be at liberty to approach before this court in an appropriate proceedings.

¶22

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in WPC no 5480 of 2022 this court has directed the respondent no. 4 and Collector to take an appropriate decision in accordance with law for granting interest from the date of actual dispossession from the land of petitioner till the date of award. No notice for contempt was issued to the applicant and therefore the applicant herein did not engaged any counsel for appearance in the contempt petition. It is probably because respondent no. 4 who addressed a computation chart to the Executive Engineer, asking him to make available the amount of Rs. 5,69,51,032/- for disbursement to the respective petitioners including present respondent no. 5 a submission was made by State Counsel about disbursement of amount within 45

¶23

3

¶24

days. But when the amount itself was not deposited by the department, no question arises for disbursement as the same remains disputed fact. The SDO, Dabhra couldn’t have directed for deposit of interest amount without deciding the date of actual dispossession. The order of the writ court was not to disburse the amount of interest but to take decision about the date of payment of interest related to actual date of dispossession, which has not been decided till date by the SDO, Dabhra.

¶25

On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent opposes the prayer made by the learned counsel for the petitioners.

¶26

Heard learned counsel for the respective parties and perused the record with utmost circumspection.

¶27

On bare perusal of the record available as well as the impugned order, it transpires that during the hearing of the contempt case no. 1355 of 2024, no representation on behalf of the respondent no. 6 was made, however State Counsel has appeared on behalf of the SDO but no one appeared on behalf of the Water Resources Department. Hence this court is of the considered opinion that the impugned order dated 27.11.2024 passed by this court in Contempt Petition No. 1355 of 2024 be recalled and the Contempt Petition No. 1355 of 2024 be restored to its original no.

¶28

4

¶29

Accordingly this MCC is allowed. Registry is directed to restore Contempt Case No. 1355 of 2024 to its original number and it be reheard.

¶30

sd/-

¶31

(Arvind Kumar Verma) JUDGE

¶32

alfiza

Virendra Kanwar v. Rajesh Sukumar Toppo

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Virendra Kanwar v. Rajesh Sukumar Toppo

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Manendra Yadav Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Lakhan Singh Maitri Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Vivek Sona @ Haddi Vs State Of Chhattisgarh

Dharmendra Nishad Vs State Of Chhattisgarh

Jitendra Kumar Patwa Vs State Of Chhattisgarh

Xyz Vs State of Chhattisgarh