1 2025:CGHC:2587 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CONT No. 1000 of 2023 1 - Mohd. Aman S/o Mohad Asharaf Aged About 52 Years R/o Sadar Bazar Raipur Tahsil And District Raipur Chhattisgarh. ... Applicant versus 1 - Mani Mukta Patel Posted As Tahsildar, Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - Mr. Avinash Champawat Secretary Department Of Revenue And Disaster Management Government Of Chhattisgarh Mahanadi Bhawan Atal Nagar Nawa Raipur (C.G.) 3 - Mahadev Kanwre Commissioner Raipur Division District - Raipur (C.G.) 4 - Kirtiman Rathore Additional Collector Raipur District - Raipur (C.G.) 5 - Nand Kumar Choubey Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue) Raipur District - Raipur (C.G.) 6 - Rakesh Dewangan Additional Tahsildar Raipur District - Raipur (C.G.) ... Respondents For applicant For respondent No. 1 : : Mr. Gautam Khetrapal and Mr. Qamrul Aziz, Adv. Mr. Sahdev Yadav, Adv. For Respondents No. 4 to 6 : Mr. Shivam Mishra, Adv. (Hon’ble Shri Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi, J) Order on Board 15/01/2025 1. This contempt petition under Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 read with Article 215 of the Constitution of India has been preferred by the applicant for non-compliance of order (Annexure C-1) dated 8-4-2022 passed in WPC No. 631/2018. 2. Vide order (Annexure C-1) dated 8-4-2022 passed in WPC No. 631/2018, this Court passed following order in para 10, 11 and 12 as under :- Digitally signed by AVANISH KUMAR PATHAK Date: 2025.01.17 11:38:43 +0530 2 “10. On perusal of the order dated 3.7.2002 passed by the Commissioner, Raipur, it is apparent from the revenue case No.99/A-85(5)/1964-65 that the suo moto revision was drawn in the year 1964-65, therefore, for the reason of the pendency of the revision petition, the petitioner has an excuse for not applying for the mutation earlier. 11. After hearing and considering on all the submissions and aspects of the case and also law applicable, this petition is allowed and disposed off at motion stage. The impugned order passed by the Board of Revenue dated 19.12.2017 (Annexure-P/1) is hereby quashed, which has the effect of restoring the order of the Commissioner dated 4.1.2013 (Annexure-P/8). 12. Accordingly, this petition is disposed off.” 3. Learned counsel for the applicant would submit that, after order (Annexure C-1) dated 8-4-2022 passed by this Court, applicant filed application before the Additional Tehsildar, Raipur, which was registered as Revenue Case no. 202206111500423/B-121/ year 2021-22, thereafter, report was called from Patwari. Aforesaid revenue case was fixed for hearing on various dates, but after 21-10-2022, no proceeding has been made in it and the same has been kept in abeyance without any reason. Since vide order under contempt dated 8-4-2022 (Annexure C-1), order passed by the Chhattisgarh Board of Revenue, Bilaspur dated 19-12-2017 was quashed, which has the effect of restoring the order passed by the Commissioner, Raipur Division, Raipur dated 4-1-2013 and in that order, the Commissioner 3 had directed the Tehsildar, Raipur to mutate disputed land in the name of applicant, despite that, land has not been mutated and revenue proceeding has been kept in abeyance, therefore, contempt proceeding may be initiated against respondents. 4. In reply, learned counsel for the respondents would submit that, in compliance of order passed by the Commissioner dated 4-1-2013, revenue proceeding has been initiated, but order dated 8-4-2022 (Annexure C-1) passed by this Court in WPC No. 631/2018 was put to challenge in Writ Appeal No. 276/2024, which was dismissed vide order dated 3-5-2024 and order dated 8-4-2022 was upheld. The order of Division Bench dated 3-5- 2024 was put to challenge before Hon’ble Supreme Court in diary No. 916/2025, therefore, no progress has been made in said revenue case. He further submits that, since mutation of disputed land in the name of applicant has not been denied by respondent authorities and the same is under consideration, therefore, it cannot be said that case for contempt is made out against respondents. 5. Heard learned counsel for parties and perused the material available on record. 6. Perusal of order dated 8-4-2022 (Annexure C-1) passed by this Court, shows that vide aforesaid order, the order dated 19-12-2017 passed by the Chhattisgarh Board of Revenue was quashed, which has the effect of restoring the order of Commissioner, Raipur Division, Raipur dated 4-1-2013, as has been observed by the Court. 7. It is not in dispute that, in compliance of order of Commissioner dated 4-1-2013, revenue proceeding has been initiated by respondent/Tehsildar, Raipur, though till date, no final order has been passed 4 in that revenue case, because, as contended by learned counsel for the respondents that the order passed by the Division Bench of this Court upholding the order dated 8-4-2022 (Annexure C-1) of this Court has been challenged before Hon’ble Supreme Court, thus since revenue proceeding is already pending and SLP before Hon’ble Supreme Court is also pending, compliance of order dated 4-1-2023 passed by the Commissioner, Raipur Division, Raipur, which has been upheld by this Court has not been denied, therefore, it can be safely said that compliance of order under contempt is under consideration before respondent authorities, as such, no case for contempt is made out at this stage. 8. Accordingly, the rule issued to respondent/s is discharged and contempt proceeding is dropped. Sd/- (Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi) JUDGE Pathak