1 2025:CGHC:61487 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CONT No. 889 of 2025 1. Mohan Kumar Suryavanshi S/o Late Devi Lal Aged About 40 Years R/o Village Sakreli, Dist. Sakti (C.G.) 2. Rajkumar Suryavanshi S/o Late Devilal Aged About 37 Years R/o Village Sakreli, District Sakti (C.G.) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1. Dr. Kamalpreet Singh, Secretary, Public Works Department Mantralaya Mahanadi Bhawan, Naya Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) 2. Mamta Patel Executive Engineer, Public Works Department, Champa Division, District Janjgir Champa (C.G.) 3. Janmeyjay Mahobe Collector, Janjgir District Janjgir Champa (C.G.) 4. Subrat Pradhan Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue), Janjgir District Janjgir Champa (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Sushobhit Singh, Advocate For Respondents No. 1 and 2 : Mr. Goutam Khetrapal, Mr. Jitendra Shrivastava with Ms. Seema Verma, Advocates Hon'ble Shri Justice Narendra Kumar Vyas Order on Board 17.12.2025 1. The petitioner has filed the present contempt petition under Section 12 of the Contempt of Court Act, 1971 read with Article 215 of the Constitution of India alleging non-compliance of the order dated 20.02.2025 (Annexure C/1) passed by this Court in WP(C) No. 952/2024 wherein this Court has passed the following order: “5. It appears that the land of the petitioners has been used for construction of main road from Janjgir to Kera and in spite of the fact that the SDO(PWD) has asked the Sub- MANISH YADAV Digitally signed by MANISH YADAV Date: 2025.12.19 18:47:46 +0530 2 Engineer (PWD) to take necessary steps for acquisition of the land of the petitioners, but till date, the compensation has not been paid to the petitioner. Hence, SDO (Revenue) is directed to make a spot inspection/demarcation of the land of the petitioners in presence of the petitioners and if it is found that the land of the petitioners has been used for the construction of the road, then necessary steps be taken within a period of 50 days from today for acquisition of the land of the petitioners in accordance with law and ensure the payment of compensation to the petitioners.” 2. In pursuance of order passed by this Court, the respondents have filed application for taking additional document on record supported by affidavit that demarcation has already been done on 16.11.2024 and in the demarcation report it is reflected that road was constructed in the year 1957 and prior to 1957, the compensation has been paid to the farmers and it has also been observed that someone has given consent to donate the land. After verifying these facts from the local villagers a panchnama dated 16.11.2024 has been prepared. 3. From perusal of the Panchnama, it is quite vivid that compensation has been paid to the land owners whose land has been acquired for construction of roads. This was vehemently objected by the learned counsel for the petitioners and would submit that no compensation has been paid to the land owners. 4. Since it’s a disputed question of facts that has to be decided after appreciation of evidence and other material on record which canot be considered in a contempt proceedings as the jurisdiction of this Court under the Contempt of Courts Act to examine whether the order has been complied with or not. Since the order has already been complied with, nothing is required to be adjudicated by this Court at this juncture. However, liberty is granted to the petitioners 3 to challenge the observation made in the Panchanama that compensation has been paid prior to 1957 before the appropriate proceedings. 5. With the aforesaid observation, the contempt petition is disposed of granting liberty in favour of the petitioners. Sd/- (Narendra Kumar Vyas) Judge Manish