Disposed

Jagat Pal v. State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC5 Dec 2023WCP/1299/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners filed a writ contempt petition alleging non-compliance of a previous order dated 15.12.2021 by the Public Land Protection Cell. The Court noted that the PLPC had already disposed of the representation on 09.10.2023, finding encroachments could not be removed due to map contradictions. The Court disposed of the contempt petition as no further order was needed but clarified that petition

What did the court decide?

The writ contempt petition was disposed of; notices were discharged. Petitioners are informed of their right to seek documents from the District Collector or challenge the PLPC order in appropriate pr

Jagat Pal Vs State of Rajasthan — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Rajasthan HC (2023)

¶1

[2023:RJ-JD:42260-DB]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

¶3

D.B. Writ Contempt No. 1299/2022

¶4

Jagat Pal S/o Shri Uda Ram, Aged About 58 Years, R/o Chak 7 Mzw, Gram Panchayat Dabli Kalan, P.s. Tibbi, District - Hanumangarh (Raj.).

¶5

Nand Lal S/o Shri Atma Ram, Aged About 42 Years, R/o Chak 7 Mzw, Gram Panchayat Dabli Kalan, P.s. Tibbi, District - Hanumangarh (Raj.).

¶6

Rakesh Kumar S/o Shri Jagdish, Aged About 36 Years, R/ o Chak 7 Mzw, Gram Panchayat Dabli Kalan, P.s. Tibbi, District - Hanumangarh (Raj.).

¶7

Pramod Kumar S/o Shri Raja Ram, Aged About 31 Years, R/o Chak 7 Mzw, Gram Panchayat Dabli Kalan, P.s. Tibbi, District - Hanumangarh (Raj.).

¶8

----Petitioners

¶9

Versus

¶10

State Of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary, Department Of Rural Development And Panchayati Raj, Secretariat, Rajasthan, Jaipur.

¶11

Shri Rukmani Riyar, The District Collector Cum Officer In Charge Public Land Protection Cell (Plpc), Hanumangarh, District Hanumangarh.

¶12

Shri Ashok Ashija, Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad, Hanumangarh, District Hanumangarh.

¶13

Shri Bhanwar Sawami, Vikas Adhikari Panchayat Samiti Tibbi, District Hanumangarh.

¶14

Shri Imichand Kantiwal, Secretary, Gram Panchayat Dabli Kallan, Panchayat Samiti Tibbi, District Hanumangarh.

¶15

Shri Gurdayal Moond, Sarpanch, Gram Panchayat Dabli Kallan, Panchayat Samiti Tibbi, District - Hanumangarh.

¶16

----Respondents

¶17

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Jitendra Singh For Respondent(s) : Mr. Sunil Beniwal, AAG

¶18

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAY BISHNOI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MUNNURI LAXMAN

¶19

[2023:RJ-JD:42260-DB]

[WCP-1299/2022]

(2 of 3)

Judgment / Order

05/12/2023

This writ contempt petition is filed by the petitioners alleging that the order passed by this Court on 15.12.2021 in DB Civil Writ Petition No.8347/2021 has not been complied.

¶25

This Court, vide order dated 15.12.2021, has disposed of the above-referred writ petition while observing that the petitioners shall approach the District Collector concerned, who shall assign the matter to the PLPC, which after conducting thorough enquiry, take appropriate action in accordance with the order passed by this Court on 30.01.2019 in the case of Jagdish Prasad Meena & Ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. passed in D.B. Civil Writ Petition (PIL) No.10819/2018 .

¶26

Learned AAG has submitted a factual report, wherein it is mentioned that the PLPC, Hanumangarh has already decided the representation filed by the petitioners vide order dated 09.10.2023. In the said order, the PLPC has concluded that looking to the contradictions in the map prepared by the Deputy Town Planner, Bikaner and the actual position of the village, it would not be possible to remove the alleged encroachments from there.

¶27

Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that though, copy of the order passed by the PLPC is supplied to him, but the documents, on which, the PLPC has placed reliance, has not been supplied. It is further submitted that in case, the petitioners decide to challenge the order passed by the PLPC, it would be difficult for them in the absence of documents on which the PLPC has relied.

¶28

[2023:RJ-JD:42260-DB]

¶29

[WCP-1299/2022]

¶30

(3 of 3)

¶31

Having heard learned counsel for the parties, we are of the opinion that since the PLPC has decided the representation of the petitioners vide order dated 09.10.2023, no further order is required to be passed in this contempt petitions and the same is disposed of.

¶32

Notices are discharged.

¶33

However, the petitioners are free to approach the District Collector concerned by moving appropriate representation with a prayer for providing them all the documents on which the PLPC has relied upon while passing of the order dated 09.10.2023. If any such request is made on behalf of the petitioners, the District Collector, Hanumangarh shall consider and decide the same strictly in accordance with law. It is also made clear that the petitioners are free to challenge the order of the PLPC, Hanumangarh dated 09.10.2023 in appropriate proceedings.

¶34

(MUNNURI LAXMAN),J

¶35

(VIJAY BISHNOI),J

¶36

48-DivyaTak/-

Jagat Pal v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jagat Pal v. State of Rajasthan

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

M/S. Ravi Infrabuild Projects Pvt. Ltd., Vs Union of India and Ors.

Dudiya Vs State of Rajasthan

M/S.Shree Ram Traders Vs State of Rajasthan and Ors.

Mahaveer Vs the State of Rajasthan

Hanuman Vs State of Rajasthan

Ranveer Vs State of Rajasthan