Disposed

Kanheaya Lal S/O Shri Rambash Patel, v. Usha Sharma

Rajasthan HC12 Mar 2024CCP/14/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Contempt petition alleging non-compliance with a writ order directing consideration of a representation about land encroachments. Respondents admitted no speaking order was passed on the representation. Court disposed of the petition directing a speaking order within two months, with opportunity of hearing to alleged encroachers.

What did the court decide?

Respondents directed to pass a speaking order on the representation and application dated 08.09.2023 within two months, granting hearing to alleged encroachers.

Kanheaya Lal S/O Shri Rambash Patel, Vs Usha Sharma — Contempt of Court | Rajasthan HC (2024)

¶1

[2024:RJ-JP:12416-DB]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶3

D.B. Civil Contempt Petition No. 14/2023

¶4

Kanheaya Lal S/o Shri Rambash Patel, Aged About 52 Years, R/o Patelo Ki Ghali, Chandsen, Tehsil Malpura, District Tonk Rajasthan Mobile No. 9784821257 Pan No. Arlpl99626.

¶5

Lalu Ram Kumawat S/o Shri Bhanwar Lal Kumawat, Aged About 68 Years, R/o Kumawat Ki Dhani, Chanden Tehsil Malpura District Tonk Rajasthan Mobile No. 9166882907 Pan No. Ksepk8243M.

¶6

----Petitioners

¶7

Versus

¶8

Usha Sharma, Chief Secretary, Government Of Rajasthan, Secretariat Jaipur.

¶9

Aparna Arora, Principal Secretary, Revenue Department, Government Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur.

¶10

Ms. Chinmay Gopal, District Collector And Chairman, Plpc, Tonk.

¶11

Shri Ram Kumar Verma (Ras), Sub Divisional Officer, Malpura, District Tonk Rajasthan.

¶12

State Of Rajasthan, Through Chief Secretary, Government Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur.

¶13

----Respondents

¶14

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Laxmi Kant Malpura For Respondent(s) : Mr. G.S.Gill, AAG through VC

¶15

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AVNEESH JHINGAN HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BHUWAN GOYAL

¶16

Order

¶17

12/03/2024

¶18

This petition is filed pleading non compliance of order dated 14.09.2022 passed in DBCWP(PIL) No.13475/2022. The operational part of order is reproduced below:

¶19

(2 of 3)

¶20

[2024:RJ-JP:12416-DB]

¶21

[CCP-14/2023]

¶22

“ In that view of the matter, the writ petition stands disposed off, in view of the directions issued by the Division Bench in the matter of Jagdish Prashad Meena (supra) and the petitioners are at liberty to make a representation before PLPC and the respondents shall consider and decide the same in accordance with law within a period of two months.

¶23

It is further made clear that the persons who are alleged to be the encroachers, shall be afforded an opportunity of hearing. ”

¶24

Learned counsel for the respondents submits that apart from the pucca residential houses mentioned in para 10 of the reply, all other encroachments have been removed and due process is being followed to remove Pucca structures. However, it is fairly submitted that no order was passed on representation as proceedings were initiated for removing the encroachments.

¶25

On the other hand, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that apart from the paper work, no encroachment has been removed on the ground level. He further submits that the petitioners filed an application on 08.09.2023 wherein the persons who have made encroachment have been mentioned along with the khasra numbers.

¶26

The direction in writ petition was to consider representation after affording opportunity to alleged encroachers. Albeit, proceedings for removing encroachment were initiated but no speaking order was passed on representation submitted by the petitioners.

¶27

The contempt petition is disposed of with directions to the respondents to decide the representation filed by petitioners as well as application filed on 08.09.2023 by passing a speaking order. It would be desirable that decision is taken expeditiously and an endeavour be made to decide the matter preferably within

¶28

(3 of 3) [CCP-14/2023]

¶29

[2024:RJ-JP:12416-DB]

¶30

two months from receipt of certified copy of this order. While dealing with representation the alleged encroachers shall be granted opportunity.

¶31

Needless to say that the petitioners shall be at liberty to avail remedies in accordance with law if aggrieved of the decision.

(BHUWAN GOYAL),J

(AVNEESH JHINGAN),J

Anu/Chandan/35

Reportable: No

Kanheaya Lal S/O Shri Rambash Patel, v. Usha Sharma

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kanheaya Lal S/O Shri Rambash Patel, v. Usha Sharma

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

Smt. Badami W/O Late Shri Balu Vs Union of India

Mamta Kumari Atal D/O Narain Lal Raigar, W/O Rakesh Arya Vs Smt. Aparna Arora (Additional Charge)

The Union of India Vs Bajrang Lal Sharma S/O Late Shri Govind Prasad Sharma

Vinay Pratap Singh Vs Income Tax Officer Ward 4 Jaip

Gopal Singh S/O Shri Ram Singh Rathore Vs Shri Mukesh Tiwari

Mahaveer S/O Mohanlal, Vs Duarkebai D/O Shri Purilal W/O Shri Mahaveer