1 2025:CGHC:57410 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CONT No. 667 of 2025 1. Netra Prakash Gabel S/o Amrit Lal Gabel Aged About 63 Years R/o Village - Karrapali, Tahsil - Adbhar, District - Sakti (C.G.) --- Petitioner versus 1. Amrit Vikas Topno Collector, Sakti, District - Sakti (C.G.), (Contemnors) 2. Rupendra Patel Sub Divisional Officer (R.), Malkharoda, District - Sakti (C.G.) 3. Mohan Kashyap Project Director, Asian Development Bank (A.D.B.) Project, Chhattisgarh Road Development Project, Public Works Department, Sirpur Bhawan, Raipur, District - Raipur (C.G.) --- Respondent(s) CONT No. 692 of 2025 1. Krishna Kumar Gabel S/o Shyam Lal Gabel Aged About 38 Years R/o Village Karrapali, Tahsil Adbhar, District Sakti Chhattisgarh. ---Petitioner Versus 1. Amrit Vikas Topno Collector Sakti, District Sakti Chhattisgarh. 2. Rupendra Patel Sub Divisional Officer (R) Malkharoda District Sakti Chhattisgarh. 3. Mohan Kashyap Project Director, Asian Development Bank (Adb) Project, Chhattisgarh Road Development Project Public Works Department, Sirpur Bhawan, Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh. --- Respondent(s) MANISH YADAV Digitally signed by MANISH YADAV Date: 2025.12.19 11:17:35 +0530 2 CONT No. 678 of 2025 1. Devnarayan S/o Bodhiram Gavel Aged About 59 Years R/o Ward No. 07, Village Taulipali, Tahsil Adbhar, District Sakti Chhattisgarh ---Petitioner Versus 1. Amrit Vikash Topno Collector Sakti, District Sakti Chhattisgarh 2. Rupendra Patel Sub Divisional Officer (Rev)/ Land Acquisition Officer Malkharauda, District Sakti Chhattisgarh 3. Bisahin Chouhan Tahsildar, Tahsil Adbhar, District Sakti Chhattisgarh --- Respondent(s) CONT No. 671 of 2025 1. Nageshwar Prasad Gabel S/o Ganesh Ram Gabel Aged About 46 Years Resident Of Village Karrapali, Tahsil Adbhar, District - Sakti Chhattisgarh ---Petitioner Versus 1. Amrit Vikas Topno Collector Sakti, District Sakti (C.G.) 2. Rupendra Patel Sub Divisional Officer-(R) Malkharoda, District - Sakti Chhattisgarh. 3. Mohan Kashyap Project Director, Asian Development Bank (Adb) Project, Chhattisgarh Road Development Project, Public Works Department, Sirpur Bhawan, Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh --- Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Sushobhit Singh, Mr. Jai Kumar Dewangan, Advocates For Respondent(s) : Mr. R.K. Gupta, Mr. Tapan Kumar Chandra and Mr. Keshav Prasad Gupta, Advocates Hon'ble Shri Justice Narendra Kumar Vyas Order on Board 26.11.2025 1. Since common question of law and facts are involved in the bunch of these contempt petitions, they are heard analogously and are 3 being disposed of by this common order. 2. The petitioners have filed the present contempt petitions under Section 12 of the Contempt of Court Act read with Article 215 of the Constitution of India alleging non-compliance of the order dated 07.01.2025 (Annexure C/1) passed by this Court in WP(C) No. 2928/2024, WP(C) No. 3004/2024, WP(C) No. 2931/2024 by the respondents wherein this Court has passed the following order: “7. In view of foregoing, it is directed that the Collector, Sakti, shall look into the matter and take appropriate steps within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order to demarcate the land bearing Khasra No. 297/1, 125/2 (13 meters) and Khasra No. 132 situated at village Jharra, District Sakti and on such demarcation if it is found that road has been constructed on the said land, ensure payment of proper compensation to the petitioner, in accordance with law.” 3. Mr. R.K. Gupta and Mr. Tapan Kumar Chandra, learned counsel for the respondents would submit that in compliance of the order passed by this Court, the Sub-Divisional Officer has constituted a committee on 15.01.2025 which has carried out the inspection and a report was submitted wherein it has been stated that the land of the petitioners is not affected from construction of road and the inspection was carried out in presence of the petitioners, but they have denied to put his signature in the inspection report. Accordingly, the Collector, District - Sakti (C.G.) has rejected the claim of the petitioners for grant of compensation. 4. This was vehemently objected by the learned counsel for the petitioners and they would submit that in the writ petition they have annexed the report of 6 members team constituted by the Asian Development Bank wherein it has been mentioned that the road was constructed over the land of the petitioners and would submit 4 that in the memo issued by the Asian Development Bank which is the part of the record wherein it has been mentioned that the petitioner’s land has been acquired for construction of the road. 5. 5. Thus, it is a disputed fact and this Court cannot examine the veracity of the documents submitted by the parties as this Court while hearing the contempt petition has limited jurisdiction in view of well settled position of law. 6. Considering the fact that the respondents have already complied with the order passed by this Court, no case for interference is made out. However, liberty is reserved to the petitioners to challenge the impugned order passed by the respondents before appropriate forum. 7. With the aforesaid observation, the contempt petitions are disposed of granting aforesaid liberty in favour of the petitioners. Sd/- (Narendra Kumar Vyas) Judge Manish