Disposed

Lekha Ram v. State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC15 Dec 2023WCP/247/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court disposed of a writ contempt petition alleging non-compliance with a previous order directing the Public Lawyer Complaint Committee to treat filed writs as complaints. The Court found compliance impossible due to status quo orders in those writs.

What did the court decide?

No further order required; petition disposed of because compliance with previous order was impossible due to status quo.

Lekha Ram Vs State of Rajasthan — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Rajasthan HC (2023)

¶1

[2023:RJ-JD:43971-DB]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

¶3

D.B. Writ Contempt No. 247/2023

¶4

Lekha Ram, Aged About 80 Years, Ward No. 13, Chak Vijay Singh Pura, Jhajhoo, District Bikaner.

¶5

Sharvan Kumar, Aged About 49 Years, Ward No. 13, Chak Vijay Singh Pura, Jhajhoo, District Bikaner.

¶6

----Petitioners

¶7

Versus

¶8

State Of Rajasthan, Through Secretary, Department Of Revenue, Govt. Of Rajasthan, Jaipur.

¶9

Vishwa Mohan Sharma, Secretary, Department Of Revenue, Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur

¶10

Bhagwati Prasad Kalal, District Collector, Bikaner.

¶11

Sultan Singh, Tehsildar, Kolayat, District Bikaner. 5. Ratan Lal Swami, Sub Divisional Magistrate, Kolayat, District Bikaner.

¶12

----Respondents

¶13

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Hapu Ram For Respondent(s) : Mr. Sunil Beniwal, AAG

¶14

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

¶15

Order

¶16

15/12/2023

¶17

This contempt petition is filed by the petitioners with a grievance that the order dated 18.04.2022 passed by this Court in D.B. Civil Writ Petition No.5461/2022 has not been complied with.

¶18

This Court, vide order dated 18.04.2022, has directed the PLPC concerned to treat the writ petition filed by the petitioners as complaint and thereafter to take a decision on it.

¶19

Mr. Sunil Beniwal, learned AAG has submitted that pursuant to the directions given by this Court, the PLPC has identified as

¶20

[2023:RJ-JD:43971-DB]

¶21

[WCP-247/2023]

¶22

(2 of 2)

¶23

many as 186 encroachments over the public land and started proceedings to remove them. It is further submtted that out of 186 encroachers, 185 have approached this Court by way of filing writ petition and in that writ petition, status quo order is operating, therefore, the encroachments could not be removed.

¶24

In view of the fact that status quo order is operating in the petition filed by the alleged encroachers, we are of the opinion that the order passed by this Court could not be complied with at this stage. Hence, no further order is required to be passed in this contempt petition and the same is disposed of.

¶25

Notices are discharged.

¶26

However, the respondents are expected to proceed further after passing of decision by the Court in the petition filed by the alleged encroachers.

¶27

(MUNNURI LAXMAN),J

¶28

(VIJAY BISHNOI),J

¶29

39-AnilKC/-

Lekha Ram v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Lekha Ram 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Dinesh Chandra Vs Mr. Anand Kumar

Banshi Lal Vs Piyush Samariya

Laxman Singh Vs Icici Bank, Jaipur

Jayshree Vs Sumit Bhan Pandey

Kalu Ram Vs State of Rajasthan

Krishan Kumar Vs State of Rajasthan