CONTAC/3/2026 of ABRAR KHAN Vs CHANCHAL RANA, I.A.S on 23 July 2026

ORDER

23.07.2026

01.

1. The contempt application filed by the appellant was dismissed by the single Bench vide order dated 7th April, 2026 with a categorical finding that the petitioner (appellant herein) has not been able to make out any case evincing the disobedience of an order dated 13th August, 2025 passed by a learned single Judge of this Court in W.P.(C) No.22585 of 2025. By virtue of the said order dated 13th August, 2025, the writ petition was disposed of directing the Bhubaneswar Municipal Corporation (BMC) to take steps to vacate the encroachers in front of the house of the petitioner after following the process of law.

2. The contempt application reveals that in pursuance of the order passed by this Court, a proceeding was initiated against the encroachers in accordance with law and, in fact, two encroachers, who were found to have encroached the land in front of the house of the petitioner, were dismantled and the encroachers were removed therefrom. However, certain pucca houses, which were found to exist as claimed by the petitioner in front of his house, could not be demolished as the persons occupying the said structure produced the Land Records Certificate pertaining to Plot No.40 under Mouja- Maa Aliashahi and, therefore, the demolition of the structure could not be made. It appears that the Bhubaneswar Municipal Corporation found a dispute in relation to the rights and title asserted by a person over the said plot and, therefore, they are not competent to take any decision thereupon.

3. Though the petitioner averred all such facts in the contempt application but under the misconception perceived the same to be contemptuous. The contempt jurisdiction can neither be stretched to revisit and/or rehear the main proceeding nor would the Court go into the nitty-gritty of the issues involved in the original proceeding. The contempt jurisdiction is restricted not only to punish the person who has been found guilty of violating and/or showing disrespect to the order passed by the Court consciously, deliberately and knowingly but also to implement the said order with its full rigor.

4. In the event, the tenet of the order invites more than one possible interpretation, it does not come within the ambit of the contempt jurisdiction. Furthermore, if a debatable issue is raised, which needs to be decided upon a full-fledged hearing and the evidence to be adduced in this regard, mere inability of the alleged contemnor to proceed with the demolition of the structure does not come within the ambit of the provisions of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. The petitioner tried to reopen the issue and, in fact, intended to have a declaration of the right of those persons having Land Record Certificates to be adjudicated upon in the contempt jurisdiction which is beyond the scope and purview thereof.

5. We, thus, do not find any illegality and/or infirmity in the impugned order in rejecting the contempt application.

6. The instant appeal sans merit and the same is hereby dismissed.

(Harish Tandon)

Chief Justice

(Chittaranjan Dash) Judge S. Behera Digitally Signed Signed by: SUMANTA BEHERA Designation: Senior Stenographer Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Date: 24-Jul-2026 11:04:27 Signature Not Verified