Smt. Tinki Jain v. Alarmelmangai D.

NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR CONT No. 894 of 2019

1. Smt. Tinki Jain W/o Shri Vaibhav Jain Aged About 35 Years R/o Dallirajhara District Balod Chhattisgarh.

---- Petitioner

Versus

1. Alarmelmangai D. Director/special Secretary, Nagariya Prasashan Vibhag, Directorate Indrawati Bhawan Atal Nagar, Raipur District Raipur Chhattisgarh.

2. Jai Prakash Mourya Collector, Rajnandgaon, District Rajanandgaon Chhattisgarh.

3. Smt. Pooja Pille Chief Municipal Officer, Nagar Palika Parishad, Khairagarh, District Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh. ---- Respondents CONT No. 893 of 2019

1. Md. Nasir Memon S/o Shri Md. Abdul Gaffar Aged About 54 Years R/o Main Road Khairagarh, Tahsil- Khairagarh District-Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh.

---- Petitioner

Versus

1. Alarmelmangai. D. Dirctor/ Special Secretary, Nagariya Prasashan Vibhag, Directorate Indravati Bhawan Atal Nagar, Raipur DistrictRaipur Chhattisgarh.

2. Jai Prakash Mourya Collector, Rajnandgaon, District Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh.

3. Smt. Pooja Pille Chief Municipal Officer, Nagar Palika Parishad, Khairagarh, District Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh. ---- Respondents

CONT No. 1103 of 2019

1. Nitesh Singh Gaharwar S/o Shri Yogendra Singh Gaharwar Aged About 35 Years R/o Killapara Ward No. 11, Police Station And Tahsil Khairagah, District Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh. ---- Petitioner

Versus

1. Alarmelmangai D. Director/special Secretary, Nagariya Prasashan Vibhag, Directorate Indravati Bhawan Atal Nagar, Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh.

2. Jai Prakash Mourya Collector, Rajnandgaon, District Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh.

3. Smt. Pooja Pille Chief Municipal Officer, Nagar Palika Parishad, Khairagarh, District Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh. ---- Respondents For respective Petitioners - Shri F.S. Khare, Advocate.

For respective Respondents - Shri S.P. Kale and Shri Rishi Rahul Soni, Advocates.

Hon'ble Shri Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra Order On Board 04/03/2021

1. Heard.

2. In these three contempt petitions, the contemners have stated that when the matter was first examined, the petitioners were found eligible for compensation but on complaint and reports in the media that the applicants are unduly benefited, the matter was re-examined and it was found that the applicants land have not been acquired for construction of the subject road. Therefore, they are not entitled to receive any compensation.

3. In view of the statement made, the contempt petitions are disposed of with liberty to the petitioners to raise their grievance in an appropriately legally permissible manner.

4. Accordingly, the present contempt petitions are disposed of with the aforesaid liberty.

SD/- (Prashant Kumar Mishra) Judge Amardeep