1 2026:CGHC:6506 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CONT No. 1807 of 2025 1 - Gangotri Kashyap W/o Daras Ram Kashyap Aged About 67 Years R/o 139, Bajrang, Para, Jarhagaon, Tahsil And District Mungeli Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioner Versus 1 - Shri Kamalpreet Working As Secretary, Public Works Department, Mahanadi Bhavan, Mantralaya, Nawa Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh. 2 - M.L. Uraon, Engineer In Chief, National Highway, Near Kali Mandir, Via Governor House Road, Raipur Chhattisgarh. 3 - Mr. Kundan Kumar (I.A.S.) Collector, Mungeli, District Mungeli C.G. 4 - Ajay Shatranj, Sub Divisional Officer (R). Mungeli, District Mungeli C.G. 5 - Shri R.K. Khambra, Executive Engineer National Highway Division Bilaspur, District Bilaspur C.G. ... Respondents For Petitioner : Mr. Sushobhit Singh, Advocate For Respondent No. 4 : Mr. Jitendra Shrivastava, Advocate For Respondent No. 5 : Mr. Tushar Dhar Diwan, Advocate SB: Hon'ble Shri Parth Prateem Sahu, Judge ORDER ON BOARD 05/02/2026 1. This Contempt Petition has been filed by the petitioner under Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, r/w. Article 215 of Constitution of India alleging willful disobedience of the order dated 16.04.2025 passed by this 2 Court in WP (C) No. 1179/2022. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that by the order subject matter of contempt, the Court has directed the respondent authorities therein to conduct demarcation proceedings and thereafter, if found that the land of the petitioner is used for construction of road, then appropriate proceeding is to be initiated for acquisition and to be completed within reasonable period of time. He submits that that though demarcation was conducted, however, no proceedings for acquisition of land of the petitioner has been initiated and therefore, the respondents have committed contempt of the order dated 14.04.2025 passed in WP (C) No. 1179/2022. 3. Learned counsel for the Respondent No. 3 & 4 would submit that they are the revenue officials and according to the directions of this Court, they have conducted demarcation of the land subject matter of writ petition bearing Khasra No. 724/1 admeasuring 0.012 acres. He further submits that upon demarcation of the said land, land of the petitioner was not found to be affected by the road constructed. 4. Learned counsel for the Respondents No. 1, 2 & 5 also submits that the demarcation was conducted by the Revenue Officials of the State Government and according to the demarcation report, land of the petitioner was not found to be affected and therefore, there was no occasion for the respondents to initiate further proceedings of acquisition of land owned by the petitioner. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and also perused the documents placed on record. 6. Before proceeding further, I find it appropriate to extract the operating portion of the order subject matter of contempt which is as under: - “7. Under these circumstances, I do not find any reason to keep these petitions pending, therefore it is directed that the respondent authorities shall demarcate the ownership of land of the petitioner 3 and if the Highway passes through the land of the petitioner, then in such case the appropriate proceeding for land acquisition shall be initiated and completed within a reasonable time. If the petitioner's land is sought to be acquired, then the adequate compensation should also be calculated and paid to the petitioner as per the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013. The petitioner shall not be forcefully dispossessed without ascertaining the aforesaid facts.” Perusal of the order extracted above would show that before proceeding further, direction was issued to respondent to conduct demarcation of the land owned by the petitioner and further observed that if highway (road) passes through the land of the petitioner then, in such case, appropriate proceedings for land acquisition shall be initiated. Demarcation report and the Panchnama prepared by the revenue officials mentions that the land of the petitioner is not affected by the highway (road). The demarcation report is stated to be signed by son of the petitioner who was present on the spot. Demarcation report is not put to challenge by the petitioner, because, no such submission is made by the counsel for petitioner. 7. In the aforementioned facts of the case, when the part of the order subject mater of writ petition is complied with by the revenue officials, conducted demarcation proceedings, prepare report and forwarded it to the authorities mentioning that the land of the petitioner is not affected, there was no occasion for the respondent authorities to comply with the subsequent directions of initiation of land acquisition proceedings, which is consequential, then further proceedings of acquisition is to be initiated. 8. For the foregoing discussions, I am of the view that the respondent authorities have complied with the order passed by this Court and there is no disobedience of the order dated 16.04.2025 passed in the writ petition bearing WP (C) No. 1179/2022. Accordingly, the contempt petition is dismissed. Proceedings initiated against the respondents is dropped. Notice stands discharged. 9. If petitioner is aggrieved with the demarcation report, then, the petitioner 4 will be at liberty to take recourse of law. 10.Certified copy as per rules. B Sd/- (Parth Prateem Sahu) Judge Dey SHUBHAM DEY Digitally signed by SHUBHAM DEY