1 2025:CGHC:19051-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CONTR No. 2 of 2025 Raipur Agro Industries Pvt. Ltd. Through Director Harjinder Singh Aged-55 Years S/o Shri Gurucharan Singh Village-Seri Khedi, Teh. And Distt.- Raipur (C.G.) ... Petitioner(s) versus Jasvant Singh Hora S/o Jai Singh Hora Aged About 65 Years R/o Shyam Nagar Raipur (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. S.V.Purohit, Advocate. For Respondent(s) : None. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Arvind Kumar Verma , Judge Judgment on Board Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice 28/04/2025 1. Heard Mr. S.V.Purohit, learned counsel for the petitioner. 2. By this petition under Article 215 of the Constitution read with Section 10 and 12 of the Contempt of Court Act, the petitioner prays for the following relief(s): 2 It is therefore prayed that in view of the above contemptner may kindly be punished suitably for committing the filing wrong revenue revision before the Court of Commissioner, Raipur on dated 02.03.2021. The same may kindly be rejected in the interest of petitioner and contempt action should be drawn Contempnor/Respondent and give him sentence and punishment. 3. We have gone through the pleadings and averments made in the contempt petition. 4. As per the ofÏce note dated 26.04.2025, this petition is not maintainable under Article 215 of the Constitution of India and further, a default has also been pointed out that the consent letter of the ofÏce of the Advocate General has also not been filed. 5. Unfortunately, the petition has been drafted in a very casual and vague manner and nothing can be gathered as to what the actual grievance of the petitioner is. On a query being made by this Court as to which is the order which has been defied by the respondent, Mr. Purohit submits that the respondent has illegally occupied a part of the land of the petitioner. According to Mr. Purohit, a revision petition was filed before the Commissioner, Raipur wherein false and baseless averments have been made by the respondent. 6. Mr. Purohit has drawn attention of this Court to Annexure C/9 which is an order passed by the Tahsildar, Raipur dated 06.10.2017 wherein the respondent has been directed to stop the construction work and to submit his response by 26.10.2017. However, he is not in a position to explain as to what had happened further in that matter as after passing of the said order, more than 7 ½ years have passed. The petitioner has also not filed the latest order sheet of the Court of Tahsildar, Raipur so as to 3 arrive at any conclusion. 7. In view of the above, if the petitioner has any grievance with regard to non-compliance of the order passed by the Tahsildar, Raipur, on 06.10.2017, he may take recourse to appropriate forum as may be available to him under the law and this petition, being not maintainable, is dismissed. Sd/- Sd/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) (Ramesh Sinha) JUDGE CHIEF JUSTICE Amit AMIT KUMAR DUBEY Digitally signed by AMIT KUMAR DUBEY Date: 2025.04.29 18:00:58 +0530