Dismissed

Mahesh Sharma v. G S Sandhu and Others

Rajasthan HC17 Sept 2014CCP/1402/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a contempt petition alleging non-compliance with an order dated 27-7-2012 concerning alleged encroachment and commercial use of premises, this court found no contempt made out upon satisfied that no encroachment existed and acknowledged the respondent's affidavit denying future commercial use, while directing vigilance to prevent conversion to commercial land.

What did the court decide?

The contempt petition is dismissed. Notice released.

Mahesh Sharma Vs G S Sandhu and Others — Contempt of Court | Rajasthan HC (2014)

¶1

¶2

Mahesh Sharma Vs. Mr. G.S. Sandhu & Others (S.B. Civil Contempt Petition No.1402/2012)

¶3

September 17, 2014.

¶4

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK SHARMA

¶5

Mr. R.P. Saini, for the petitioner. Dr. P.C. Jain, on behalf of respondents.

¶6

BY THE COURT :

¶7

Non compliance with the order dated 27-7-2012 passed by this

¶8

court is alleged in this contempt petition. Thereby this court had directed that the petitioner should make a representation to the Commissioner Vigilance, Jaipur Municipal Corporation as also the Commissioner Hawa Mahal, Zone West Jaipur with regard to his grievance pertaining to encroachment on the public road in front of his house by the respondent No.4 Ravi Shankar Tiwari and also use of the said premises for commercial purposes.

¶9

Dr. P.C. Jain appearing on behalf of respondent authorities submits

¶10

that on enquiry not an inch of public road was found to have been encroached upon by the respondent No.4. He has further submitted that in order to ensure compliance of the order dated 27-7-2012 passed by this court the property of the respondent No.4 was seized. Aggrieved the respondent No.4 filed a statutory appeal before the Director Local Bodies, who required the respondent No.4 to be heard and remanded the matter to the Municipal Authorities. Following the remand, the respondent No.4

¶11

¶12

filed an affidavit before the Municipal Authorities that neither he had used the premises for commercial purposes in the immediate past nor would he

¶13

use them for the said purposes in future. In this view of the matter no contempt of court is made out, counsel submitted.

¶14

Heard. considered.

¶15

In the context of the order dated 27-7-2012 passed by this court and submissions of Dr. P.C. Jain, no contempt as alleged is made out. The respondents are however directed to keep a vigil to retain the use of the premises of respondent No.4 in issue in this contempt petition as residential unless lawfully converted to commercial use.

¶16

The contempt petition stands accordingly dismissed. Notices are discharged.

(Alok Sharma), J.

arn/

All corrections made in the order have been incorporated in the order being emailed.

¶21

Arun Kumar Sharma, Private Secretary.

Mahesh Sharma v. G S Sandhu and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mahesh Sharma v. G S Sandhu and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt Krishna Vs Mrs Kaumodi Gupta

Shiv Dayal Sharma Vs Ravi Kumar and Others

Smt Muli Devi Vs Hanuman Sahai and Ors.

Raj Ram Yadav Vs C K Mehtew and Others

Gyan Singh and Others Vs C K Mathew and Another

Parmeshwar Lal Bhaskar Vs Mr Bhaskar a Sawant and Another