Disposed

Bhaganaram v. Tulcharam

Rajasthan HC1 Jun 2023WCP/556/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This is a single-paragraph order disposing of a contempt petition. The court found that while the interim order maintained status quo regarding possession, it did not strictly prohibit raising construction by respondents in possession. The petition was listed for later hearing. The writ petition was detagged.

What did the court decide?

Petition listed for hearing after eight weeks; writ petition detagged.

Bhaganaram Vs Tulcharam — Landlord and Tenant | Rajasthan HC (2023)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

¶2

S.B. Writ Contempt No. 556/2023

¶3

Bhaganaram S/o Shri Lichmanram, Aged About 55 Years, By Caste Jat, Resident Of Hesaba, Tehsil Khinvsar, District Nagaur (Rajasthan).

¶4

Late Hukmaram S/o Shri Amraram, Through His Legal Representatives-

¶5

Harku Devi W/o Late Hukmaram, Aged About 80 Years, By Caste Jat, Resident Of Hesaba, Tehsil Khinvsar, District Nagaur (Rajasthan).

¶6

Rajuram S/o Late Hukmaram, Aged About 58 Years, By Caste Jat, Resident Of Hesaba, Tehsil Khinvsar, District Nagaur (Rajasthan).

¶7

Jetharam S/o Late Hukmaram, Aged About 54 Years, By Caste Jat, Resident Of Hesaba, Tehsil Khinvsar, District Nagaur (Rajasthan).

¶8

----Petitioners

¶9

Versus

¶10

Tulcharam S/o Shri Sheraram, By Caste Jat, Resident Of Hesaba, Tehsil Khiwsar, District Nagaur (Rajasthan).

¶11

Amar Singh Manju, Tehsildar, Khinvsar, District Nagaur. 3. State Of Rajasthan, Through Tehsildar, Khinvsar DistNagaur.

¶12

----Respondents

¶13

For Petitioner(s)	: Mr. Nimba Ram Choudhary
For Respondent(s)	: -

¶14

JUSTICE DINESH MEHTA

¶15

Order

¶16

01/06/2023

¶17

By way of present contempt petition, petitioners have alleged violation of order dated 21.11.2022 passed by this Court in S. B. Civil Writ Petition No.16789/2022 by alleging that the respondents are raising construction on the disputed land.

¶18

(2 of 2)

¶19

[WCP-556/2023]

¶20

Upon hearing learned counsel for the petitioners and on perusal of the order dated 21.11.2022, this Court finds that interim order is only limited to maintaining ‘status quo with regard to possession’.

¶21

In prima facie opinion of this Court, respondents who were admittedly having possession of the disputed land have not in stricto-sensu violated the interim order passed by this Court by raising construction.

¶22

Mr. Choudhary, learned counsel for the petitioners prays for some time to move application for clarification of the order dated 21.11.2022.

¶23

List this contempt petition after eight weeks.

¶24

Record of the writ petition be detagged from the present contempt petition.

¶25

(DINESH MEHTA),J

¶26

247-akansha/-

Bhaganaram v. Tulcharam

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bhaganaram v. Tulcharam

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

Mangilal Vs M/S Wonder Cement Ltd.

Laxmi Vs State of Rajasthan

Devendra Singh Purawat Vs State and Ors.

Teena Kumari Vs State of Rajasthan

Mehra Ram Vs State of Rajasthan

Puran Mal Vs State and Ors.