Dismissed

Vikesh Singh @ Jitendra Singh S/O Samay Singh v. Anjali Rajoria

Rajasthan HC12 Nov 2024CCP/152/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A contempt petition challenging disobedience of earlier directions regarding encroachment removal was disposed of without merits, granting liberty to file an application before the Public Land Protection Cell.

What did the court decide?

Petition disposed of with liberty to file an application before the Public Land Protection Cell if the grievance survives or stay is vacated.

Vikesh Singh @ Jitendra Singh S/O Samay Singh Vs… — Writ and Judicial Review | Rajasthan HC (2024)

¶1

[2024:RJ-JP:46759-DB]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶3

D.B. Civil Contempt Petition No. 152/2024

¶4

¶5

D.B. Civil Writ Petition No.11178/2023

¶6

Vikesh Singh @ Jitendra Singh S/o Samay Singh, Aged About 28 Years, Resident Of 265 Near Gram Sevak Quarter And Near Govt School Kanjoli District Karauli(Rajasthan).

¶7

----Petitioner

¶8

Versus

¶9

Anjali Rajoria, District Collector, Gangapur City(Raj.).

¶10

Aparna Arora, Secretary, Revenue Department Govt. Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur.

¶11

State Of Rajasthan, Through Secretary To The Government Revenue Department Govt. Secretariat, Jaipur (Rajasthan).

¶12

----Respondents

¶13

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Rajendra Prasad Gautam For Respondent(s) : Mr. Manoj Kumar for Mr. G.S. Gill,AAG

¶14

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AVNEESH JHINGAN HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE UMA SHANKER VYAS

¶15

Order

¶16

12/11/2024

¶17

This petition is filed pleading willful disobedience of directions of this Court dated 26.07.2023 passed in D.B. Civil Writ Petition No.11178/2023.

¶18

The operational part is quoted below:-

¶19

"5. Considering that this petition has been disposed of at the motion stage, without issuing notice to the respondents, it is made

¶20

[2024:RJ-JP:46759-DB]

¶21

[CCP-152/2024]

¶22

(2 of 2)

¶23

clear that this Court has not commented upon the merits of the case, but only directed inquiry on the complaint as per the order passed in the

¶24

case of Jagdish Prashad Meena (supra) .

¶25

It is further directed that in the inquiry for removal of the encroachment, the persons who are alleged to be encroachers, shall be afforded an opportunity of hearing."

¶26

Learned counsel for the respondents submits that the District Collector, Gangapur City vide order dated 27.03.2024 directed for removal of encroachments. In pursuance to the order, except pucca residential house constructed, other encroachments have been removed. The contention is that the Civil Court vide order dated 27.03.2024 directed the parties to maintain status quo with regard to the property in question.

¶27

In view of above, the petition is disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to file an application with Public Land Protection Cell (PLPC) in case grievance still survives or in case the stay is vacated.

¶28

There is no doubt in the eventuality of the petitioner filing an application before the PLPC, the same shall be considered in accordance with law.

¶29

(UMA SHANKER VYAS),J

¶30

(AVNEESH JHINGAN),J

¶31

Simple Kumawat /66

Vikesh Singh @ Jitendra Singh S/O Samay Singh v. Anjali Rajoria

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vikesh Singh @ Jitendra Singh S/O Samay Singh v. Anjali Rajoria

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

C.C.E. and S.T. Jaipur -I Vs Mitsui Prime Advanced Compostites India Pvt. Ltd.

Asha Khunteta W/O Shri Sandeep Khunteta Vs Assistant Commissioner, Office of Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, CIRCLE-3

Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax Vs Shri Jugal Kishore Garg (Derewala)

Amita Malik Proprietor of M/S Chopra Electronics Vs Union of India

Prabhulal Mehra S/O Shri Ramnarain Vs Mr. Ravindra Goswami

Rajan Jhiriwal Son of Shri Kamal Kumar Jhiriwal Vs Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax