1 2025:CGHC:45507 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCC No. 218 of 2025 Rupesh Goel S/o Late Shri Vidyasagar Agrawal Aged About 51 Years Caste - Agrawal, R/o Bagbahara, Tehsil Bagbahara, District Mahasamund Chhattisgarh. ... Appellant (s) versus Shri Prabhat Malik Collector, Mahasamund, District Mahasamund Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent(s) For Appellant (s) : Mr. Rajat Agrawal, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mr. Kishan Lal Sahu, Dy. GA Hon'ble Shri Justice Narendra Kumar Vyas Order on Board 08/09/2025 1. This MCC has been filed for restoration of contempt case No. 435 of 2024 for alleged non-compliance of the Court order wherein this Court has passed the following order which is as under:- Since, now rain has stopped and sunlight is easily available so that image through satellite can be visualized by the ISRO within one month and thereafter wind may blow in the State of Chhattisgarh and since the petitioner’s land is situated near forest area so again there will be difficulty for the ISRO to take pictures, therefore, it is directed that Special Secretary will pursue to the ISRO in this regard and receive the report within 01 month from today so that due to winter season the work may not be hampered. 2 Mr. Ramesh Sharma has informed that Government has already issued various circulars, directions to the Collectors to minimize dispute with regard to land and for that they have also constituted a team. It is hope and trust that the State Government will monitor the work and the same be completed within stipulated time period so that proceeding cannot be delayed unnecessarily which may create dispute over land issues. 2. Since the order has not been complied with, therefore, the applicant has filed the MCC before this Court for restoring the contempt petition. 3. This Court has directed the State to seek instruction on the last date of hearing and in pursuance of direction, the State has filed the document contending that demarcation of the land has already been done as per order dated 18.03.2025. 4. Counsel for the applicant would submit that the demarcation has been done but not in accordance with the rules, therefore, opposite party has preferred revision petition before Sub Divisional Officer who has questioned the procedure adopted by the State for conducting demarcation of the land. 5. Since the order has already been complied with, as such nothings remains to be adjudicated in the case, therefore, the MCC is disposed of. However, liberty is granted to the applicant to exhaust the remedy available to him under the law questioning the order passed by SDO before appropriate forum. 6. Accordingly, the MCC is disposed of. Sd/- (Narendra Kumar Vyas) Judge santosh SANTOSH KUMAR SHARMA Digitally signed by SANTOSH KUMAR SHARMA Date: 2025.09.10 10:19:58 +0530