Dismissed

Amar Singh v. Smt. Namrata Vrishni

Rajasthan HC11 Nov 2022WCP/475/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court addressed a contempt petition alleging non-compliance with a prior PIL order to remove encroachments. Finding that prohibited land was clear and encroachments on Barani land involved landless persons whose regularization was based on State policy, the court held the authorities were not guilty of willful disobedience and discharged the contempt rule.

What did the court decide?

The contempt petition is disposed of and the rule is discharged.

Amar Singh Vs Smt. Namrata Vrishni — Land Acquisition | Rajasthan HC (2022)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT

¶2

JODHPUR

¶3

D.B. Writ Contempt No. 475/2022

¶4

Amar Singh S/o Shri Jag Singh, Aged About 62 Years, By Caste Rajput, R/o Bagawas, Tehsil Bagora, District Jalore (Raj.).

¶5

----Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

Smt. Namrata Vrishni, District Collector, Jalore.

¶8

Naanga Ram Choudhary, Tehsildar Bagora, Distt. Jalore. 3. State of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary, Department Of Revenue, Govt. Of Rajasthan, Jaipur.

¶9

----Respondents

¶10

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. T.R. Choudhary For Respondent(s) : Mr. Sunil Beniwal, AAG

¶11

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP MEHTA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KULDEEP MATHUR

¶12

Order

¶13

11/11/2022

¶14

The petitioner has filed the instant contempt application raising a grievance that the direction given by this Court vide order dated 02.08.2021 passed in writ petition (PIL) No.9263/2021 filed by the petitioner to remove encroachments existing on the land of Khasra Nos.219, 220 and 221 of Village Bagawas, Patwar Halka Lunawas, Tehsil Bagora, District Jalore has not been complied with.

¶15

Shri Sunil Beniwal, AAG has filed a compliance report on record wherein it is indicated that the land of Khasra No.219, admeasuring 1.64 hectares was recorded as Gair Mumkin Gochar

¶16

(2 of 2)

¶17

[WCP-475/2022]

¶18

whereas khasra No.221 admeasuring 8.20 hectares was recorded as Barani-I, (Gochar) land in the revenue record.

¶19

An enquiry was conducted pursuant to the said direction and as many as 19 encroachments were noticed on land of Khasra No.220. No encroachments were noticed on Khasra Nos.219 & 221. Eleven encroachments have already been removed from the land in question. One of the encroachers has procured a stay order and in another case, direction to maintain status quo has been passed. Five encroachers namely Jaga Bharti, Bhola Bharti, Adra Bharti, Hadmata, and Jamat Bharti who have encroached on the land of Khasra No.220 which is of Barani category are landless persons and thus, the Panchayat has drawn a proposal to regularize their possession under the Scheme of State Government.

¶20

Apparently thus, we are satisfied that there are no encroachments on prohibited category of land. The proposal to regularize the possession/dwelling houses of the five encroachers, referred to supra, has been taken in light of the State Government’s policy and hence, the authorities are not liable to be punished for willful disobedience of this Court’s order.

¶21

Consequently, the contempt petition is disposed of. Rule is discharged.

¶22

(KULDEEP MATHUR),J

¶23

(SANDEEP MEHTA),J

¶24

19-Sudhir Asopa/-

Amar Singh v. Smt. Namrata Vrishni

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Amar Singh v. Smt. Namrata Vrishni

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

M/S. Miraj Products Private Ltd. Vs Union of India

Smt. Bijuri Vs Smt. Lali

Pankaj Jain Vs Income Tax Officer, WARD-1

Kishan Singh Duggal Vs Board of Revenue, Ajmer and Ors.

A.C.T.O.,W-Iii,Cir-D,Jodhpur Vs M/S Chimni Ram Uma Ram

Shiva Explosives India Pvt. Ltd. Vs State of Rajasthan