1 2025:CGHC:5117 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CONT No. 136 of 2025 • Shobhna George W/o Sapan George Aged About 58 Years R/o Ward No. 6 Rajeev Nagar Katghora District - Korba (C.G.) ... Petitioner/Applicant versus 1. Rohit Singh, Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue) Katghora, District Korba (C.G.). 2. Lilar Goswami, S/o Arjun Puri, Aged 49 Years, R/o R/o Ward No.6, Rajeev Nagar, Katghora, District Korba (C.G.). ... Respondent (Cause title taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner/Applicant : Dr. Arpit Lall, Advocate. For Respondent No.1 : Mr. Jitendra Shrivastava, counsel appears on instructions. Hon'ble Shri Justice Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi Order on Board 29/01/2025 1. Heard. 2. The instant contempt petition has been filed under Article 215 of the Constitution of India read with Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 for non-compliance of the order dated 01.10.2024 passed in WP(C) No.4943/2024. 3. This Court has passed the following order dated 01.10.2024 in WP(C) No.4943/2024 in paras 5, 6 & 7 :- “5. Be that as it may, it is expected that the respondent No. 3 shall decide the appeal filed by the respondent No. 5 Annexure P/2 in accordance with law expeditiously preferably within a period of 3 months from the date of production of copy of this order after hearing the stakeholders. 2 6. Accordingly, the petition is disposed of with aforesaid observations and directions. 7. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case.” 4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that though appeal has been decided by the Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue) Katghora, District Korba (C.G.), but the same has not been decided in accordance with law, therefore, contempt proceeding may be drawn against the respondents. 5. Since order under contempt has been complied with, as there was only direction to the respondent No.3 to decide the appeal expeditiously and the said fact has also been admitted by the counsel for the applicant that order under contempt has been complied with. 6. Having considered the aforesaid fact that order under contempt dated 01.10.2024 passed in WP(C) No.4943/2024 has been complied with, thus, no case of contempt is made out, as such I do not find any reason to proceed further in the matter, initiating contempt proceeding against the respondent. 7. If, applicant is not satisfied with the order passed by the respondent authorities with regard to his appeal, then he may take recourse to law for redressal of his grievance. 8. Accordingly, contempt proceeding is dropped. No order as to costs. Sd/- (Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi) Judge DEEPTI JHA NIRALA Digitally signed by DEEPTI JHA NIRALA Date: 2025.01.29 17:21:48 +0530