##PAGE1##

1

2026:CGHC:23377

NAFR

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

CONT No. 131 of 2017

1 - Santosh Namdeo S/o Late Shri Khorwahra Namdeo, Aged About 55

Years R/o Sheetla Ward No.19, Kawardha, District Kabirdham,

Chhattisgarh, Chhattisgarh

... Petitioner

versus

1 - Sudesh Kumar Singh Thakur Chief Municipal Officer, Kawardha

Municipality, Kawardha, District Kabirdham, Chhattisgarh, Chhattisgarh

2 - Anil Sahu S/o Late Shri Salikram Sahu, Aged About 41 Years R/o

Behind Old Municipality Building, Darripara, Ward No.26, Kawardha,

District Kabirdham, Chhattisgarh, District : Kawardha (Kabirdham),

Chhattisgarh

3 - Dev Narayan Kashyap, Sub Divisional Magistrate Revenue,

Kawardha, District Kabirdham, Chhattisgarh .................Contemnors,

District : Kawardha (Kabirdham), Chhattisgarh

... Respondent(s)

(Cause title is taken from CIS)

For Petitioner : Mr. Amrito Das, Senior Advocate along with

Mr. Yashkaran Singh, Advocate

For Respondent No.1. : Mr. Rajnish Singh Baghel, Advocate

For Respondent No.2. : Mr. Abhipreet Bajpai, Advocate holding brief

on behalf of Mr. Anurag Bajpai, Advocate

For Respondent No.3. : Ms. Parwati Suryawanshi, Advocate appears

on behalf of Mr. Bhupendra Singh, Advocate

SB: Hon'ble Shri Parth Prateem Sahu, Judge

Digitally

signed by

PRAVEEN

KUMAR

SINHA

Date:

2026.05.18

16:06:27

+0530

2

Order on Board

15/05/2026

1. Petitioner has filed this Contempt Petition alleging willful

disobedience of order dated 10.11.2016 passed in WP (PIL)

No.91/ 2016.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, observation

made by Division Bench of this Court in para-3 of the order

which is subject matter of the contempt petition has not been

complied with. He also submits that there was a direction to

Sub Division Officer (R) to give notice of the appeal to the

petitioner therein also, however the appeal was decided

without issuance of notice to the petitioner. He however fairly

submitted that appeal filed by respondent No.5 herein

ultimately got dismissed. He next contended that in para-3,

there is specific direction that respondent No.5 therein shall not

raise any further construction on the land in question, but from

photographs annexed along with the contempt petition as

compared to the photographs annexed along with the writ

petition, it appears that further construction has taken place

and the Chief Municipal Officer, Kawardha has not taken any

steps for restraining respondent No.5 therein from raising

further construction and thereby respondents have committed

contempt of order passed by this Court.

3

3. Mr. Rajnish Singh Baghel, learned counsel for respondent No.1

would vehemently opposed the submission of counsel for the

petitioner and would submits that order passed in WP (PIL)

No.91/ 2016 has been complied in its words and spirit. After

passing of the order no construction has been permitted to be

made by respondent No.2 herein who is respondent No.5 in the

writ petition.

4. Learned counsel for respondent No.2 also submits that after

passing of the order in the writ petition, respondent No.2 has

not made any construction over the superstructure which was

already constructed on the date of passing of the order.

5. Ms. Parwati Suryawanshi, counsel appearing for respondent

No.3 would submits that as directed by this Court the appeal

submitted by the respondent No.5 therein was considered on

merits and have expeditiously disposed of dismissing the

appeal filed by the respondent No.5.

6. I have heard counsel for the respective parties.

7. So far as the first submission made by the counsel for the

petitioner that the petitioner was not given notice of hearing of

the appeal pending before Sub Division Officer (R) is

concerned. Considering the fact that appeal submitted by

respondent No.5 in the writ petition have ultimately dismissed

on merits, I am not inclined to proceed on that pretext to initiate

contempt proceedings against the respondent No.3, when he

4

complied with the order passed by this Court and expeditiously

considered and concluded the proceedings dismissing t