Disposed

Kishan Grah Nirman Sahkari Samiti Limited, v. Shri T. Ravikanth

Rajasthan HC18 Aug 2023CCP/451/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A contempt petition against a PIL was disposed of after the court noted that the eviction order was served. The court recorded that removal must be completed within two months, reserving the right to file a fresh writ if compliance fails, without commenting on the merits.

What did the court decide?

Contempt petition disposed; rule discharged; petitioner permitted to file separate writ if encroachment not removed within two months.

Kishan Grah Nirman Sahkari Samiti Limited, Vs… — Writ and Judicial Review | Rajasthan HC (2023)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶2

D.B. Civil Contempt Petition No. 451/2023

¶3

¶4

D.B. Civil Writ (PIL) Petition No.9091/2021

¶5

Kishan Grah Nirman Sahkari Samiti Limited, Govind Nagar, Delhi Road, Alwar, Through Its President Sukhdev Singh S/o Shri Rawel Singh, Aged About 82 Years, R/o 2-Ka-19, Manu Marg, Housing Board, Alwar (Rajasthan).

¶6

----Petitioner

¶7

Versus

¶8

Shri T. Ravikanth, Principal Secretary( Additional Charge) Urban Development And Housing Department Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur.

¶9

Shri Pukhraj Sain, District Collector, Alwar (Rajasthan).

¶10

Shri Ashok Kumar Yogi, Secretary, Urban Improvement Trust, Alwar (Raj.).

¶11

Smt. Roop Kanwar W/o Brijpat Singh, R/o House No. 16, Ward No. 48, Ashok Vihar, Tijara Road, Alwar-301001.

¶12

The State Of Rajasthan, Through The Principal Secretary, Urban Development And Housing Department, Govt. Of Rajasthan, Jaipur.

¶13

----Respondents

¶14

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Vinayak Kumar Joshi For Respondent(s) : Mr. Ajay Shukla

¶15

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

¶16

Order

¶17

18/08/2023

¶18

The compliance report has been submitted in the case stating that the proceedings initiated against the respondent No.4 in the writ petition have now been completed and an order has been passed on 16.06.2023 for removal of excess construction.

¶19

(2 of 2) [CCP-451/2023]

¶20

Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the respondents have passed the order of eviction but so far encroachment/excess construction has not been removed.

¶21

Learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the order dated 16.06.2023 shall be brought to its logical conclusion by removing encroachment at the earliest.

¶22

Considering the statement made and that now the order has been been passed by the respondents, these proceedings are closed. It will, however, be open for the petitioner to bring to the notice of this Court by a separately constituted writ petition, if despite passing of order dated 16.06.2023, the encroachment is not removed within a period of two months.

¶23

Before parting with the case, it is made clear that we have not commented upon the merits of the case nor this order should be treated as taking away from the person affected, right to prefer any appeal or take any such legal remedy, if he is aggrieved by order dated 16.06.2023.

¶24

The contempt petition stands disposed off.

¶25

Rule is discharged.

¶26

(ASHUTOSH KUMAR),J

¶27

(MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA),J

¶28

MADAN/47

Kishan Grah Nirman Sahkari Samiti Limited, v. Shri T. Ravikanth

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kishan Grah Nirman Sahkari Samiti Limited, v. Shri T. Ravikanth

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Gopal Sharma Son of Shri Balkishan Sharma, Vs Smt. Usha Sharma

Central Board of Secondary Education Vs Mayank Vaishnav Son of Shri Hemraj Vaishnav

Rampal Sharma S/O Shri Roodmal Sharma Vs State of Rajasthan

Balua Ram Vaishnav Son of Shri Battu Ram Vs Shri Ankit Kumar Singh

Hari Singh Meena S/O Shri Kalwa Ram Meena Vs the State of Rajasthan

Devaram S/O Laduram Vs Smt. Usha Sharma