Disposed

Kalu Ram v. State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC7 Nov 2023WCP/633/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this D.B. Contempt Petition, the court examined whether the respondents complied with prior directions regarding public land encroachments. Relying on a compliance report and the petitioner's satisfaction expressed in an affidavit, the court found no need for further order.

What did the court decide?

The contempt petition was disposed of and notices were discharged without any further order.

Kalu Ram Vs State of Rajasthan — Public Procurement and Tenders | Rajasthan HC (2023)

¶1

[2023:RJ-JD:38434-DB]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

¶3

D.B. Writ Contempt No. 633/2022

¶4

Kalu Ram S/o Sh. Imrata Ram, Aged about 41 Years, R/o Ward No.7, Village Daulatpura 3 Q Mirzewala, District Sriganganagar.

¶5

----Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

The State of Rajasthan, through the District Collector, Sriganganagar.

¶8

Smt. Rukmani Riyar Siyag, District Collector, Sriganganagar.

¶9

Shri Manoj Meena, Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue), District Sriganganagar.

¶10

----Respondents

¶11

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Pradeep Singh For Respondent(s) : Mr. Sunil Beniwal, AAG with Mr. Utkarsh Gurjar

¶12

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

¶13

Order

¶14

07/11/2023

¶15

1. This contempt petition has been filed by the petitioner complaining that the respondents have not complied with the directions given by this Court vide order dated 02.11.2020 passed in D.B. Civil Writ Petition No.10342/2020 (Kalu Ram & Ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.) .

¶16

2. Vide order dated 02.11.2020 passed in D.B. Civil Writ Petition No.10342/2020 (Kalu Ram & Ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.) , this Court while relying on the decision rendered by this Court in Gulab Kothari Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. (D.B. Civil Writ Petition No.1554/2004) has granted liberty to the

¶17

(2 of 2)

¶18

[2023:RJ-JD:38434-DB]

¶19

[WCP-633/2022]

¶20

petitioner to approach the Public Land Protection Cell (hereinafter to be referred as ‘the PLPC’) of District Sri Ganganagar. It is further directed that the PLPC shall consider the representation of the petitioner in accordance with law and the encroachment on the land forming part of the road or the public area be removed if required so.

¶21

3. Compliance report has been filed on behalf of the respondents, wherein it is mentioned that the PLPC has issued a direction to remove the encroachments over the public land and in pursuance of that the encroachments have been removed. It is also mentioned in the compliance report that the contempt petitioner-Kalu Ram has furnished an affidavit on 14.04.2022, wherein it is mentioned that he is satisfy with the action taken by the respondents.

¶22

4. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after perusing the compliance report as well as the affidavit of contempt petitioner-Kalu Ram, we are of the view that no further order is required to be passed in this contempt petition.

¶23

5. Hence, this contempt petition is disposed of.

¶24

6. Notices are discharged.

¶25

(MUNNURI LAXMAN),J

¶26

(VIJAY BISHNOI),J

¶27

Abhishek Kumar S.No.46

Kalu Ram v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kalu 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

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Chandrashekhar @ Shekhar Vs State of Rajasthan

Pramod Kumar Vs State of Rajasthan

Chiman Vs State of Rajasthan

Man Singh Vs Shri Anand Kumar

Pradeep Vs State of Rajasthan

Bhanwar Lal Pandar Vs State of Rajasthan