Dismissed

Suresh Chand Jat S/O Shri Ram Sahai v. Shri Kunji Lal Meena

Rajasthan HC29 May 2023CCP/938/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This Order dismisses a contempt petition alleging willful disobedience of an earlier directive to remove encroachments from public land. The Court held that respondents removed encroachments from public ways while disputes over private lands remained separate and legally actionable. Notices were discharged.

What did the court decide?

Contempt petition dismissed and notices against respondents discharged.

Suresh Chand Jat S/O Shri Ram Sahai Vs Shri… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Rajasthan HC (2023)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶2

D.B. Civil Contempt Petition No.938/2022

¶3

¶4

D.B. Civil Writ Petition (PIL) No.14676/2021

¶5

Suresh Chand Jat S/o Shri Ram Sahai, Aged About 33 Years, R/o Village Devisinghpura Jagannathpura, Post Ajayrajpura, Tehsil Sanganer, District Jaipur, Rajasthan.

¶6

----Petitioner

¶7

Versus

¶8

1. Shri Kunji Lal Meena, Principal Secretary, Urban Development and Housing Department, Government of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur.

¶9

Shri Ravi Jain, Commissioner Jaipur Development Authorit, Indira Cirlce, JLN Marg, Jaipur.

¶10

Rashtradeep Yadav, Deputy Commissioner Zone-11, Jaipur Development Authority, JLN Marg, Jaipur.

¶11

Shri Prakash Rajpurohit, District Collector Jaipur District.

¶12

Smt. Ekta Kabra, SDM Sanganer Tehsil Sanganer Jaipur. 6. Smt. Suman Mordiya, Tehsildar Sanganer Jaipur.

¶13

State of Rajasthan, through Principal Secretary, Urban Development and Housing Department, Government of Rajasthan, Govt. Secretariat, Jaipur.

¶14

----Respondents

¶15

For Petitioner(s) : M.Ramavtar Bochalya, Adv. For Respondent(s) : Mr.Anil Mehta, AAG with Mr.Yashodhar Pandey, Adv.

¶16

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR GAUR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHUTOSH KUMAR Order

¶17

29/05/2023

¶18

The instant contempt petition has been filed by the petitioner alleging willful disobedience of order dated 13.01.2022 passed by this Court in D.B. Civil Writ Petition (PIL) No.14676/2021.

¶19

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner being a public spirited man had filed the writ petition

¶20

[CCP-938/2022]

¶21

(2 of 4)

¶22

(PIL) before this Court raising a grievance in respect of illegal encroachments made over the Government land, as the land was recorded in the revenue record as gair mumkin rasta i.e. public path in khasra Nos.237, 239, 299, 308, 121, 121/342, 121/341, 121/347, 121/340 & 121/339 situated between Village Jagannathpura to Devisinghpura, Tehsil Sanganer, District Jaipur.

¶23

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the Coordinate Bench had disposed of the writ petition (PIL) at admission stage on 13.01.2022 and further directed the petitioner to approach the respondents-contemnors in view of direction issued in the case of Jagdish Prashad Meena & Ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. in D.B. Civil Writ Petition (PIL) No.10819/2018 vide order dated 30.01.2019, for creation of Public Land Protection Cell (PLPC) for rural areas in every District.

¶24

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the respondents-contemnors have not passed any order on the representation submitted by the petitioner and as such, the present contempt petition has been filed.

¶25

The respondents-contemnors have filed reply to the contempt petition.

¶26

The respondents-contemnors have pleaded that the grievance of the petitioner has been redressed, as far as removal of encroachment from the public way is concerned. Learned AAG Mr.Anil Mehta appearing for the respondents-contemnors submitted that the office order dated 26.07.2022 issued by the Tehsildar, Tehsil Sanganer, District Jaipur clearly makes a reference of encroachment being removed by the Jaipur

¶27

[CCP-938/2022]

¶28

(3 of 4)

¶29

Development Authority in respect of land situated in Village Jagannathpura bearing khasra Nos.237, 239, 299 & 308.

¶30

Learned counsel submitted that as far as dispute in respect of other piece of land is concerned, the same falls within private khatedari rights of the villagers and as such, khasra Nos.121, 121/342, 121/341, 121/347, 121/348 and 121/239 situated at Gram Devisinghpura belong to the private land holders and the same has also not been shown as public path way, the Authorities accordingly, have removed the encroachment from the public way except khatedari land of private persons.

¶31

Learned AAG for the respondents-contemnors Mr.Anil Mehta submits that the report dated 11.11.2022 has also been sent by the Sub-Tehsildar Bagru, District Jaipur to the SDO, Sanganer, Jaipur-II giving out the complete details of encroachment being removed by the Jaipur Development Authority.

¶32

Learned counsel for the petitioner Mr.Ramavtar Bochalya submitted that an additional affidavit has been filed by him, wherein he has produced copy of report of the patwari dated 01.04.2022 along-with revenue map.

¶33

Learned counsel, on the strength of these documents, submitted that the Authorities have not removed the encroachment from the abovementioned khasras as they are duty bound to remove the illegal encroachments.

¶34

Learned AAG Mr.Anil Mehta, in rejoinder, submitted that no person concerned has been arrayed as party respondent either in the main writ petition (PIL) or in the present contempt petition

¶35

[CCP-938/2022]

¶36

(4 of 4)

¶37

and in absence of necessary party, no order may be passed by this Court.

¶38

Learned AAG for the respondents submitted that if the petitioner has any grievance in respect of any encroachment being made by the private land holders/khatedars, this grievance cannot be permitted to be raised by the petitioner in the garb of filing of the Public Interest Litigation.

¶39

We have heard learned counsel of the parties and perused the material available on record.

¶40

We find that the respondents-contemnors have filed their reply on affidavit and it has been asserted by them that the Jaipur Development Authorities has removed the encroachment from the public way from certain khasras, as referred hereinabove.

¶41

We are afraid to accept the submission of the counsel for the petitioner that encroachment has not been removed from the land in dispute.

¶42

It goes without saying that if the petitioner has any grievance in respect of other issues, he is always free to avail the remedy as provided under the law.

¶43

This Court, in contempt petition is primarily concerned to see the willful disobedience of the order passed by the Court, we find that the respondents-contemnors have already taken the necessary exercise and as such, the present contempt petition is dismissed and notices are discharged.

¶44

(ASHUTOSH KUMAR), J Himanshu Soni/19

¶45

(ASHOK KUMAR GAUR), J

Suresh Chand Jat S/O Shri Ram Sahai v. Shri Kunji Lal Meena

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Suresh Chand Jat S/O Shri Ram Sahai v. Shri Kunji Lal Meena

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mohan Das Son of Shyam Sundar Vs Shri Nannumal Pahadia

District Cricket Association Vs Dy. Registrar Societies Cum Registrar Institution

K. P. Lal (Deceased) Vs Okay Plus Builders LLP

Shiv Raj Assavara S/O Shri Ram Gopal Assarvara Vs Smt. Meera Devi W/O Shri Shiv Raj Assavara, D/O Shri Kishan Sugaliya

M/S Flora-O-Foods, Vs State of Rajasthan

Meghna Rathore D/O Himmat Singh Rathore Vs Rajasthan High Court