Petitioner filed a writ contempt petition alleging non-compliance of a previous order directing enquiry into encroachments. Respondents submitted that a joint inspection found no encroachments. The Court held that the substance of the impugned order was complied with.
Contempt petition dismissed; no further order required; notices discharged.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
[2023:RJ-JD:41164-DB]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR
D.B. Writ Contempt No. 792/2022
Ashok Kumar S/o Shri Pokar Ram, Aged About 28 Years, Resident Of Daro Ki Dhaniya, Rampura, Tehsil Phalodi, Post Raneri, Rampura, Jodhpur (Raj.).
----Petitioner
Versus
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Jagdish Kumar Vishnoi For Respondent(s) : Mr. Sunil Beniwal, AAG with Mr. Kunal Upadhyay
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAY BISHNOI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MUNNURI LAXMAN
Order
29/11/2023
1. This contempt petition has been filed on behalf of the petitioner alleging that the respondents have not complied with the directions given by this Court vide impugned order dated 15.12.2021 passed in D.B. Civil Writ Petition No.17354/2021 (Ashok Kumar Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.) .
[2023:RJ-JD:41164-DB]
[WCP-792/2022]
(2 of 3)
2. This Court vide impugned order dated 15.12.2021 directed the PLPC to conduct thorough enquiry into the representation of the petitioner in the light of the directions given by this Court at Jaipur Bench vide order dated 30.01.2019 passed in Jagdish Prasad Meena & Ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. (D.B. Civil Writ Petition No.10819/2018) .
3. Reply to this contempt petition has been filed on behalf of the respondents, wherein it is mentioned that a joint inspection was carried out by the revenue officials on 12.07.2022 and during the said inspection, it was found that no encroachments were there over the public land falling in Khasara No.297 of Village Raneri, Tehsil Bap.
4. Mr. Sunil Beniwal, learned AAG appearing on behalf of the respondents has submitted that the said joint inspection was carried out by the revenue officials as per the directions given by the District Collector, Jodhpur in a representation filed by the petitioner before the PLPC.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has disputed the said position and submitted that there are encroachments over the public land of Khasara No.297 of Village Raneri, Tehsil Bap and the respondents are not removing the same.
6. Be that as it may, this Court vide impugned order dated 15.12.2021 had ordered for deciding the representation of the petitioner in the light of Jagdish Prasad Meena’s case (supra), which has already been decided by the respondents.
7. In such circumstances, this Court is of the view that the substantial compliance of the order impugned has been made by
(3 of 3)
[WCP-792/2022]
[2023:RJ-JD:41164-DB]
the respondents, therefore, no further order is required to be
passed in this contempt petition.
8. Hence, this contempt petition is dismissed.
9. Notices are discharged.
(MUNNURI LAXMAN),J
(VIJAY BISHNOI),J
Abhishek Kumar S.No.72
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the impugned order dated 15.12.2021 directing the PLPC to conduct an enquiry was substantially complied with.
Whether the complaint that encroachments were not removed necessitated a fresh order in the contempt petition.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Ashok Kumar
State Of Rajasthan
Shri Himanshu Gupta
Smt. Archana Vyas
Shri Ramjaan Khan
Sunil Kumar
VIJAY BISHNOI
MUNNURI LAXMAN
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
