Amar Sai Vs Gaurav Kumar Singh — Chhattisgarh HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

Amar Sai Vs Gaurav Kumar Singh — Chhattisgarh HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

None beyond closure: contempt proceeding against the respondent dropped, notice discharged, contempt petition closed, with liberty reserved to the petitioner to avail other alternate remedies under law.

Issue for consideration

Whether the respondents wilfully disobeyed the order dated 14.10.2020 passed in WPC No. 2356/2020 so as to justify continuance of the contempt petition. +1 more

Court's answer

On the facts stated, there is no good ground to continue with the contempt petition any further.

Ratio / Principle

The order under contempt directed respondents No. 1 to 4 therein to take a decision on the petitioner's application regarding the alleged illegal construction and, in compliance, demolish part of the superstructure; that part-demolition is apparent from the photographs enclosed along with the affidavit executed by the petitioner.

Key takeaways

The contempt proceeding initiated against the respondent is dropped, the notice issued to the respondent is discharged, and the contempt petition is closed; liberty is reserved to the petitioner to avail other alternate remedies available under law.ratio¶23

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Contempt Petition (CONT No. 912 of 2021), High Court of Chhattisgarh at Bilaspur (Parth Prateem Sahu, J.), decided 17/07/2026: The petitioner alleged willful disobedience of the order dated 14.10.2020 passed in WPC No. 2356/2020, whereby respondents No. 1 to 4 therein were directed to take a decision on his application regarding alleged illegal construction and, in compliance, demolish part of the superstructure. Counsel for respondent No. 4 submitted that pursuant to the writ order a decision had been taken on the petitioner's application for removal of encroachment, notice was issued for encroachment, and demolition of the house was done; counsel for the petitioner contended that the entire superstructure had not been demolished. Perusing the order under contempt and the photographs enclosed with the petitioner's affidavit showing demolition of part of the superstructure, the Court found no good ground to continue the contempt petition. The contempt proceeding was dropped, the notice to the respondent was discharged, and the petition was closed, with liberty reserved to the petitioner to avail other alternate remedies under law.

1 / 2

CGHC010321322021 2026:CGHC:30419

NAFR

PAWAN
KUMAR
JHA
Digitally
signed by
PAWAN
KUMAR JHA

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

CONT No. 912 of 2021

Amar Sai S/o Shri Tulasi Aged About 36 Years R/o Village Kalyanpur, Police Station Jainagar, Tehsil Surajpur, District Surajpur Chhattisgarh., District : Surajpur, Chhattisgarh

... Petitioner

versus

Gaurav Kumar Singh The Collector Surajpur , District Surajpur Chhattisgarh.

Ravi Singh The Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue ) Surajpur, District Surajpur Chhattisgarh.

Pratik Jaiswal The Tahsildar Surajpur, Tehsil Surajpur, District Surajpur Chhattisgarh.

Amrita Singh (Then Nayab Tahsildar ) Present Tehsildar Latori, Tehsil Latori, District Surajpur.

... Respondent For Petitioner : Mr. Sushil Dubey, Advocate For Respondent No. 4 : Mr. Raj Kumar Sahu, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Parth Prateem Sahu, Judge

ORDER ON BOARD

17/07/2026

Petitioner has filed this contempt petition alleging willful disobedience of the order dated 14.10.2020 passed in WPC No. 2356/2020.

Learned counsel for respondent No. 4 submits that pursuant to the order, subject matter of this contempt, passed in writ petition, decision has already been taken on the application submitted by petitioner for removing the encroachment. In the proceeding, notice was issued for encroachment and further demolition of the house has been done.

2 / 2

Learned counsel for applicant would submit that though the decision has been taken on the application submitted by petitioner, however, entire superstructure has not been demolished.

Perusal of order under contempt passed in writ petition would show that direction was issued to respondents No. 1 to 4 therein to take decision on the application of petitioner in respect to the alleged illegal construction and in compliance of it, demolished the part of superstructure, which is appearing from the photographs enclosed along with affidavit executed by petitioner.

In the aforementioned facts of the case, I find no good ground to continue with this contempt petition any further.

Accordingly, contempt proceeding initiated against respondent is dropped, notice issued to respondent is discharged and the contempt petition is accordingly closed. However, liberty is reserved with the petitioner to avail other alternate remedy available to him under law.

Sd/-

(Parth Prateem Sahu)

JUDGE

pwn