Page No.# 1/4 GAHC010078502018 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Cont.Cas(C)/166/2018 DHARMA KANTA CHARAH AND ANR. S/O- SRI DUTI RAM CHARAH, R/O- PALUNG, P.O- GALI BORBALI, DIST- DHEMAJI, ASSAM 2: KHAGEN KULI S/O- LATE MALASON KULI R/O- TAKOGITUNG P.O- LAIMEKURI P.S- JONAI DIST- DHEMAJI ASSA VERSUS ANANDA KR. DAS AND ORS. THE DEPUTY SECRETARY TO THE GOVT OF ASSAM, REVENUE (S) DEPTT, SACHIVALAYA, DISPUR, GUWAHATI- 781006, ASSAM 2:DHARMA KANTA MILI THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER DHEMAJI DIST- DHEMAJI PIN- 787058 ASSAM 3:ATUL KR. SARMAH THE SUB DIVISIONAL OFFICER JONAI DIST- DHEMAJI PIN- 787060 ASSAM 4:NARSING PAWAR IAS Page No.# 2/4 THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER DHEMAJI DIST. DHEMAJI ASSAM PIN- 787058. 5:JIMLEE SAIKIA KAKOTY THE SUB-DIVISIONAL OFFICER JONAI DIST. DHEMAJI ASSAM PIN- 78706. 6:PRADEEP KUMAR DWIVEDI Sub DIvisional Officer(Civil) Jonai Dhemaji-78706 Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. S BARTHAKUR, MR D GOGOI,MR. J ABBAS,MS M DAS,MR. M BISWAS Advocate for the Respondent : MR. D SAIKIA (R2), MR. N GOSWAMI,MS. M BHATTACHARJEE (r-4),MR. A DAS (R-5),MS. M DEVI(R-5),MR P NAYAK (R2),MR. B GOGOI,MR. B GOGOI (R2) BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR MEDHI ORDER 17.09.2025 Heard Shri A Ghoshal, learned counsel appearing on instructions of Shri M Biswas, learned counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Shri R Borpujari, learned counsel for the original respondent nos. 1 and 3. 2. Shri Borpujari, learned counsel, however, has informed that the said respondent nos. 1 and 3 are no longer holding the posts but had filed the affidavit-in-opposition. 3. The allegation, in this case, is regarding willful and deliberate disobedience of an order dated 06.01.2017 passed by this Court in WP(C)/3494/2015. The said case Page No.# 3/4 instituted by the petitioner was filed for a direction for demarcating the PGR land for two areas, namely, 2185 bighas, notified on 01.12.1992 and 15,735 bighas, notified on 10.12.2010. Vide the said two notifications, the aforesaid land was earmarked as PGR land. 4. This Court vide the aforesaid order dated 06.01.2017 had disposed of the writ petition by directing the respondent nos. 2 and 5 to carry out the demarcation process as per the aforesaid two notifications. The petitioners had contended that no action was taken for compliance of the aforesaid direction of this Court and therefore, the contempt petition was instituted. 5. After issuance of notice, the contesting respondents had filed affidavit-in- opposition. 6. Shri Borpujari, learned counsel has submitted that apart from the affidavit wherein the allegation of willful and deliberate disobedience has been refuted, he had obtained up-to date instructions in April, 2024 as per which, the demarcation was completed in February, 2022 itself. The said communication dated 03.04.2024 was presented before this Court earlier and was made a part of the records by marking the same as Flag ‘X’. 7. This Court has examined the aforesaid communication dated 03.04.2024 as per which, the area in question was demarcated in February, 2022. The said communication has dealt with the aspect that in certain portions of landmass, there were encroachment by erosion affected people who practice cultivation and the entire area was situated in a very remote and difficult terrain with no mode of communication. Thereafter in October, 2021 cadastral survey was conducted and the notified PGR area was demarcated which was completed in February, 2022. From the Page No.# 4/4 aforesaid communication and the contents thereof, it appears that the order in question has been substantially complied with. 8. Accordingly, this Court is of the considered view that unless the non-compliance is deliberate and willful, there would be no requirement to proceed under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. 9. In view of the above, the contempt petition stands closed. JUDGE Comparing Assistant