Dismissed

Vinod Kumar Damor v. State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC22 Nov 2023WCP/803/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This is a single bench contempt petition challenging compliance with a previous July 2020 order regarding encroachments on village land. The court dismissed the petition relying on compliance reports stating encroachments were removed, noting the road construction issue was outside the writ's scope.

What did the court decide?

The contempt petition is dismissed; notices are discharged.

Vinod Kumar Damor Vs State of… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Rajasthan HC (2023)

¶1

[2023:RJ-JD:40098-DB]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

¶3

D.B. Writ Contempt No. 803/2022

¶4

Vinod Kumar Damor S/o Nadhu Ji Damor, Aged About 42 Years, By Caste Bheel, R/o Dungar Tehsil Gadhi, Distt. Banswara

¶5

Laxman Lal Katara S/o Nanji Katara, Aged About 40 Years, By Caste Bheel, R/o Thali Talai, Post Nawaghara, Tehsil Gadhi, Dist. Banswara

¶6

Rohit Bhagora S/o Devi Lal Bhagora, Aged About 30 Years, By Caste Bheel, R/o Anjana, Tehsil Gadhi, Dist. Banswara

¶7

Dinesh Chandra S/o Kacharu Lal, Aged About 44 Years, By Caste Bheel, R/o Dakar Kundi, Tehsil Gadhi, Dist. Banswara

¶8

Prakash Chandra Charpota S/o Gendal, Aged About 32 Years, By Caste Bheel, R/o Bhatar, Tehsil Gadhi, Distt. Banswara

¶9

Rajesh Kumar Charpota S/o Amba Lal Charpota, Aged About 32 Years, R/o Dakar Kundi, Tehsil Gadhi, District Banswara

¶10

----Petitioners

¶11

Versus

¶12

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

¶13

Shri Prakash Sharma, District Collector, Banswara.

¶14

----Respondents

¶15

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. R. P. Singaria For Respondent(s) : Mr. Sunil Beniwal, AAG with Mr. Kunal Upadhayay

¶16

(2 of 3)

¶17

[2023:RJ-JD:40098-DB]

¶18

[WCP-803/2022]

¶19

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAY BISHNOI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE YOGENDRA KUMAR PUROHIT

¶20

Order

¶21

22/11/2023

¶22

This contempt petition has been filed by the petitioners complaining that the order passed by this Court on 30.07.2020 in DB Civil Writ Petition No.4131/2020 has not been complied with. This Court, while disposing of the aforesaid writ petition, has granted liberty to the petitioners to approach the District Collector, Banswara by way of filing detailed representation, with a further direction to the District Collector, Banswara to examine the grievance of the petitioners and do the needful in the matter within a period of three months from the date of filing of the representation.

¶23

In the writ petition, the petitioners have complained that several encroachments have been made on the land recorded as Talaab in the revenue record of Village Navapadar, Tehsil Gadhi, District- Banswara.

¶24

Compliance reports have been filed on behalf of the respondent, wherein it is stated that the encroachment over the land recorded as T alaab of Village Navapadar, Tehsil Gadhi, District- Banswara, have already been removed. In support of the contention, various site inspection reports prepared by the revenue officials, have been produced indicating that the encroachments made over the land recorded as Talaab have already been removed, however, learned counsel for the petitioners has urged that the said mauka/inspection reports are prepared by the revenue officials in their office and as a matter of

¶25

[WCP-803/2022]

¶26

[2023:RJ-JD:40098-DB]

¶27

(3 of 3)

¶28

fact, no encroachments have been removed from the land recorded as Talaab of Village Navapadar, Tehsil Gadhi, DistrictBanswara. It is also submitted that the administration has constructed a road in between the Talaab.

¶29

In the absence of any counter affidavit to the compliance report, we are unable to accept the contention of learned counsel for the petitioners.

¶30

So far as construction of road in between the Talaab is concerned, that is not the subject matter of the writ petition.

¶31

The petitioners are free to avail appropriate remedy available to them in accordance with law, if they are aggrieved by the construction of road in between the Talaab.

¶32

In view of the above, no further order is required to be passed in this contempt petition.

¶33

This contempt petition is dismissed accordingly. Notices are discharged.

¶34

(YOGENDRA KUMAR PUROHIT),J

¶35

(VIJAY BISHNOI),J

¶36

76-Arun/-

Vinod Kumar Damor v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vinod Kumar Damor v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Santosh Vs State of Rajasthan

Masraram @ Masra Vs State of Rajasthan

State of Rajasthan Vs the East India Hotels Limited

Ladu Lal Vs the State of Rajashan

Gajendra Bhati Vs Rajasthan High Court

Khiyan Khan Vs the State of Rajasthan