1 2026:CGHC:20832 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CONT No. 835 of 2022  Pawan Kumar Agrawal (Died) Through Krishna Kumar Agrawal, S/o Late Pawan Kumar Agrawal, Aged About 49 Years, Occupation Business, R/o RSB Compound, New Sarkanda Bilaspur, Tehsil And District- Bilaspur (C.G.) ... Petitioner versus 1. Raj Kumar Sahu, Additional Tahsildar, Tahsil And District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. 2. Chat Lal Kashyap, Revenue Inspector, Village-Koni, Tahsil And District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. 3. Manish Shukla, Revenue Inspector, Village-Nagoi, Tahsil And District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. 4. Satish Kaushik, Revenue Inspector, Village-Beltara, Tahsil And District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. 5. Ashwani Dewangan, Revenue Inspector, Village-Sarkanda, Tahsil And District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. 6. Abhishek Sharma Patwari Halka No. 48, Village-Birkona, Tahsil And District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. 7. Lomesh Baiswade, Patwari Halka No. 23, Village-Koni, Tahsil And District Bilaspur. 2 8. Naveen Tripathi, Patwari Halka No. 46, Village-Sendri , Tahsil And District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. 9. Virendra Patanwar, Patwari Halka No. 32, Village-Sarkanda, Tahsil And District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. 10. Rishi Puri Goswami, Patwari Halka No. 25, Village-Koni, Tahsil And District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondents For Petitioner : Mr. Ankit Pandey, Advocate. For Res. No.1 to 7 & 9 : Mr. Ghanshyam Patel, Advocate For State : Mr. Jitendra Shrivastava, Govt. Advocate Hon’ble Smt. Justice Rajani Dubey (Order on Board) 05.05.2026. 1. Pursuant to this Court’s order dated 22.04.2026, Mr. Prakriti Dhruw, Additional Tahsildar, Bilaspur was present before with Court along with record of Revenue Case No.202205075300199/A-12. Her presence is marked and record of the revenue case be returned back. 2. The petitioner has preferred this contempt petition against respondent authorities for willful disobedience and not complying with the order dated 08.04.2022 passed in WP(C) No.1724/2022, wherein specific direction was given to the respondent No.5/respondent No.1 herein to conduct 3 demarcation of the land belonging to the petitioner in presence of the Officers of respondent No.6 therein at the earliest, preferably, within a time limit of 30 days in accordance with the Chhattisgarh Bhu Abhilekh Niyamawali. It was further ordered that in case, it is found in the demarcation that the land belonging to the petitioner is not subject to utilization for the construction of road by respondent No.6 therein then appropriate proposal be sent by the concerned for the acquisition of the said portion of the land in accordance with law. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner, placing reliance on the decision of Hon’ble Apex Court in the matter of Gauri Shankar Pd. Rai vs. Sajal Chakroborty and Ors, [MANU/SC/0399/2015], prayed that the direction may be issued to the respondent authorities to comply with the directions contained in order dated 08.04.2022 after properly understanding the purport of the judgments of this Court. Learned counsel further submits that liberty may be reserved in favour of the petitioner, in case the cause of action survives. 4. On the other hand, Mr. G.S. Patel, learned counsel for respective respondents submits that the respondents hold 4 the highest respect of this Court and its orders and has no intention whatsoever to disobey or flout any direction of this Court. He further submits that as per the misal map, the houses have been constructed nearby the Chandamonara and the demarcation process may be carried out as per the new system styled as DGPS. Learned counsel further submits that direction may be issued to the complainant party to remain present at the time of demarcation proceeding to avoid further dispute and in this regard advance notice would be issued to the complainant also. 5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 6. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the matter of Gauri Shankar (supra) held in para 17 to 20 as under :- “17. However, in our considered view the reliance placed upon the judgments and orders of the High Court as well as this Court do support the contention of the complainants for the reason that there is wilful disobedience on the part of the respondents as they have partially fulfilled the direction given by this Court as well as the High Court with regard to the regularization of the services of the complainants from the year 1987. 18. However, further direction is issued to 5 the Respondents to regularise the services of the complainants from the date of their initial appointment as Junior Engineers i.e. from the year 1981. Not complying with the directions issued by this Court from the above mentioned year would amount to deprivation of the legitimate rights of the complainants as determined by the High Court and this Court in the judgments and orders. 19. After taking the entire litigation, pleadings, documents on record and the rival legal contentions urged on behalf of the parties into consideration, we direct the Respondents to comply with the above said direction after properly understanding the purport of the judgments and orders of the High Court as well as this Court. 20. For the aforesaid reasons, we give one more opportunity to the Respondents to comply with the judgments and orders in toto for the regularization of the services of the complainants from the year 1981. The same cannot be treated as a fresh direction issued in the contempt petitions to the Respondents as we have indicated the purport of the operative portion of the judgments and orders of the High Court as well as this Court. The Respondents shall comply with the order as indicated above and submit their compliance report within four weeks from today.” 6 7. In the light of aforesaid judicial pronouncement in Gauri (supra), and taking into consideration the pleadings of learned counsel for the parties and documents on record, this Court deems it proper that affording additional opportunity to comply does not amount to issuing fresh directions but reinforces the original order. 8. For the aforesaid reasons, this Court give one more opportunity to the respondents to comply with the order of this Court. The respondents authorities, after issuing advance notice to the petitioner, shall carry out demarcation proceeding in accordance with ‘Chhattisgarh Bhu Abhilekh Niyamawali’ and conclude the same within six months from the receipt of copy of this order. It is also directed that at the time of demarcation of land of the petitioner, the petitioner shall remain present at the spot to avoid further dispute. 9. With the aforesaid directions, the contempt petition is disposed of. However, liberty is reserved with the petitioner to approach this Court, if the cause of action survives. Sd/- (Rajani Dubey) Judge pekde Digitally signed by VIJAY BHARATRAO PEKDE Date: 2026.05.05 16:45:34 +0530