Vidhyadhar Das Mahant v. Mr. Atul Shethe

-1NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR CONT No. 320 of 2016

1. Vidhyadhar Das Mahant S/o Late Shri Bhalidhar Das, Aged About 46 Years R/o Gram Basantpur, Tehsil And District Raigarh, Chhattisgarh 496001

2. Punamdas Mahant, S/o Late Shri Bhalidhar Das, Aged About 42 Years R/o Gram Basantpur, Tehsil And District Raigarh, Chhattisgarh 496001

3. Panchram Mahant, S/o Late Shri Bhalidhar Das, Aged About 40 Years R/o Gram Basantpur, Tehsil And District Raigarh, Chhattisgarh 496001

4. Bundelabai Mahant W/o Late Shri Bhalidhar Das, Aged About 62 Years R/o Gram Basantpur, Tehsil And District Raigarh, Chhattisgarh 496001 ---- Petitioners

Versus

1. Mr. Atul Shethe Aged About 50 Years At The Time Of Order Was Posted As Tahsildar Raigarh, (Presently Posted As S. D. M. Laillunga), In The Office Of The S.D.M. Laillunga, Tehsil And District Raigarh, Chhattisgarh 496001

2. Mr. Shivnandan Sahu, Aged About 55 Years Presently Posted As Tahasildar Raigarh, The Office Of The Tahsil Office Raigarh, Tehsil And District Raigarh, Chhattisgarh 496001

3. Mr. Alarmel Mangaee Di Aged About 42 Years Presently Posted As Collector, Raigarh, In The Office Of The Collector Office Raigarh, Tehsil And District Raigarh, Chhattisgarh 496001.......(Respondents) ---- Respondents For Petitioners : Mr. Vijay K. Deshmukh, Advocate.

S.B.:

Hon'ble Shri Justice Manindra Mohan Shrivastava Order On Board 01/08/2016 Heard on admission.

Submission of learned counsel for the petitioners is that though there was an order passed by this Court on 24.01.2013 for making fact finding

-2enquiry as to whether the land in dispute is service land or Maphi land, no enquiry was made, the matter was kept pending and thereafter when some other person moved application claiming the land to be service land, in a slipshod enquiry, without detailed enquiry as directed by this Court, it has been recorded by the Tahsildar that the land is a service land and not Maphi land. 2.

Irrespective of the merits of the claim of the petitioners, I find that it was brought to the notice of the Tahsildar that an order has been passed earlier by this Court. The Tahsildar has recorded a finding based on certain materials that the land in dispute is a service land and not Maphi land. 3.

Therefore, it cannot be said to be a case of willful disobedience. I am not inclined to initiate contempt proceeding and the contempt petition is therefore dismissed reserving liberty to the petitioner that if the petitioner is aggrieved by the order of the Tahsildar, his remedy lies in challenging order passed by Tahsildar by way of appeal or such other remedy as may be available to him under the provision of the Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code. Sd/- (Manindra Mohan Shrivastava) Judge Rekha