Disposed

Birbal S/O Motilal Meena v. Ravindra Goswami

Rajasthan HC28 Aug 2023CCP/117/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court disposed of a contempt petition alleging willful disobedience of an earlier order to examine encroachment. Ruling that the authorities had identified the encroachment and removed part of it, with the remainder due to a separate interim order, the Court decided not to proceed further.

What did the court decide?

Rule discharged; contempt petition disposed of without further proceedings due to partial compliance and pending interim order in related writ petition.

Birbal S/O Motilal Meena Vs Ravindra… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Rajasthan HC (2023)

¶1

[2023:RJ-JP:19639-DB]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶3

D.B. Civil Contempt Petition No.117/2023

¶4

¶5

D.B. PIL Petition No.12913/2022

¶6

Birbal S/o Motilal Meena, Aged About 48 Years, R/o Raghunathganj, Bundi, Rajasthan-323801

¶7

----Petitioner

¶8

Versus

¶9

Ravindra Goswami, District Collector, District Bundi, Rajasthan.

¶10

----Contemnor/Respondent

¶11

1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Principal Secretary, Department Of Revenue, Government Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Janpath, Jaipur.

¶12

Bhawani Singh Dedha, Additional Chief Secretary, Department Of Local Self Government, Government Of Rajasthan, G-3, Rajmahal Residential Area, C-Scheme, Near Civil Lines Phatak, Jaipur.

¶13

Ganesh Sharma, Tehsildar, Tehsil Nainwa, District Bundi, Rajasthan.

¶14

Mahima Dangi, Secretary, Municipal Council, Nainwa, District Bundi, Rajasthan.

¶15

----Non-Petitioners/Respondents

¶16

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Hemang Singh for Mr. Naman Yadav For Respondent(s) : Mr. Rahul Sehra for Mr. Rajesh Maharshi, AAG

¶17

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHUTOSH KUMAR

¶18

Order

¶19

28/08/2023

¶20

This contempt petition has been filed alleging willful disobedience of order dated 28.09.2022 by which this Court had

¶21

[2023:RJ-JP:19639-DB]

¶22

[CCP-117/2023]

¶23

(2 of 2)

¶24

directed the respondents-authorities to examine the representation relating to encroachment.

¶25

In view of affidavit filed by the respondents, it has been stated that in compliance of the order passed by the Court, the encroachment was identified and the officials of the Revenue Department in the presence of other persons carried out the dispossession proceedings with the help of machines. The reports submitted alongwith the reply show that the encroachment has been removed. A part of the land, however, could not be touched as there is an interim order dated 02.02.2023 passed in favour of some of the occupants in Writ Petition No.1526/2023.

¶26

Though prayer for adjournment is made, we are not inclined to grant adjournment. This Court had not decided any issue but only direction was to take steps to identify encroachment. The respondents having passed an order, having identified the land of encroachment and having removed part of it and other part could not be removed because of the interim order passed in the writ petition, we are not inclined to proceed further in this contempt petition.

¶27

The contempt petition stands disposed off.

¶28

Rule is discharged.

¶29

(ASHUTOSH KUMAR),J

¶30

(MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA),J

¶31

MADAN/102

Birbal S/O Motilal Meena v. Ravindra Goswami

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Birbal S/O Motilal Meena v. Ravindra Goswami

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

State of Rajasthan Vs Chiranji Lal S/O Late Shri Meethya Meena

Gopal Gosewa Sansthan Vs State of Rajasthan

Meethya Vs State and Ors.

Lok Utthan Sansthan Vs Shri Akhil Arora, I.A.S.

Rajesh Kumar S/O Ram Singh Vs State of Rajasthan

Om Prakash S/O Shri Badan Singh Vs Shri Alok Ranjan