1 2025:CGHC:1519 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CONT No. 1189 of 2024 1 - Krishna Prasad S/o Kejuram Dubey Aged About 54 Years Caste Bramhan, R/o Village Kahdabri, Tahsil Manpur, District Mohla-Manpur-Ambagarh Chowki (C.G.), (Earlier District Rajnandgaon (C.G.) ... Petitioner versus 1 - Mr. Surendra Kumar Urvasa Tahsildar, Manpur, District Mohla-Manpur- Ambagarh Chowki (C.G.), (Earlier District Rajnandgaon (C.G.), 2 - Mr. Chhirku Ram Sarpanch, Gram Panchayat, Kahdabri, Post Sivni, Tahsil Manpur, District Mohla-Manpur-Ambagarh Chowki (C.G.), (Earlier District Rajnandgaon (C.G.) ... Respondents /contemnors (Cause title taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner : Mr. Punit Ruparel, Advocate. For Respondents : None present. Hon’ble Shri Justice Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi Order on Board 09/01/2025 1. This contempt petition has been preferred by the applicant under Article 215 of the Constitution of India read with Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act for non-compliance of the order dated 03.12.2020 passed by this Court in WPC No. 2925 of 2020. 2. This Court has passed the following order in Writ Petition (C) No 2925 of 2020 annexed as Annexure-C/1, which reads thus :- “In the meanwhile, it is directed that the petitioner may appear for clarification of his stand pursuant to 2 the notice issued to him. However, it is also directed that the petitioner shall not be forcefully evicted otherwise than in due course of law from the lease of land till the next date of hearing. List the matter after six weeks.” 3. Learned counsel appearing for the applicant submits that the applicant has not been evicted from the lease of land, but Tahsildar, Manpur, District Mohla- Manpur-Ambagarh Chowki and village Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat Kahdabri, are threatening the applicant to evict the said land, as such, they are violating the orders & directions issued by this Court in the order under contempt dated 03.12.2020 passed in WPC No. 2925 of 2020. 4. I have heard counsel for the petitioner and perused the mater available on record. 5. When the applicant has not been evicted from the said land, therefore, only because of alleged threatening by respondents/contemnors, no contempt is made out against the respondent/contemnots, as the order under contempt dated 03.12.2020 has not been violated. 6. In view of above, I do not find any reason to proceed further in the matter initiating contempt proceeding against the respondents. 6. Accordingly, the contempt petition is dropped and rule issued is discharged. However, the Court supposes that respondents authorities shall not violate the order dated 03.12.2020 passed by this Court in WPC No. 2925 of 2020 and the petitioner is at liberty to inform about passing of this order to respondent authorities. Sd/- (Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi) Judge Amit AMIT KUMAR DUBEY Digitally signed by AMIT KUMAR DUBEY Date: 2025.01.14 12:37:24 +0530