Dismissed

Nekiram S/O Nemichand v. Smt. Usha Sharma

Rajasthan HC11 Mar 2024CCP/927/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Disattended D.B. Civil Contempt Petition challenging compliance with an order directing execution of eviction under Section 91 of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, 1956, where intentional disobedience was not established.

What did the court decide?

Contempt petition dismissed; petitioners at liberty to avail remedies for surviving grievances after conclusion of other proceedings.

Nekiram S/O Nemichand Vs Smt. Usha Sharma — Contempt of Court | Rajasthan HC (2024)

¶1

[2024:RJ-JP:12096-DB]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶3

D.B. Civil Contempt Petition No.927/2022

¶4

Nekiram S/o Nemichand, R/o Nooniya Gothda, Tehsil Chidawa, District Jhunjhunu.

¶5

Ranveersingh S/o Bhagwanaram, R/o Nooniya Gothda, Tehsil Chidawa, District Jhunjhunu.

¶6

Balveer S/o Narayanram, R/o Ajeetpura District Jhunjhunu.

¶7

Jan Kalyan Samiti, Mandrela Tehsil Chidawa District Jhunjhunu Through Minister Rishi Sharma.

¶8

----Petitioners

¶9

Versus

¶10

Smt. Usha Sharma, Chief Secretary Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur.

¶11

Laxmansingh Kudi, District Collector Jhunjhunu.

¶12

Sandeep Choudhary, Sub Divisional Officer Chidawa, District Jhunjhunu.

¶13

Kamaldeep Puniya, Tehsildar Chidawa, District Jhunjhunu. 5. State Of Rajasthan, Through Chief Secretary, Secretariat, Jaipur.

¶14

----Respondents

¶15

For Petitioner(s) : Mr.Ved Pal Shastri, Adv. For Respondent(s) : Mr.G.S. Gill, AAG (Through VC) with Mr.Manoj Kumar, Adv.

¶16

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

¶17

11/03/2024

¶18

AVNEESH JHINGAN, J [ORAL]:-

¶19

This contempt petition is filed pleading non-compliance of the direction dated 23.05.2022 passed in D.B. Civil Writ Petition No.4716/2022. The operational part of the order is reproduced below:-

¶20

(2 of 4)

¶21

[2024:RJ-JP:12096-DB]

¶22

[CCP-927/2022]

¶23

“There is no averment made in the writ petition, whether any person, against whom the execution of order has been sought, has taken recourse to remedy of the appeal provided under the law.

¶24

Therefore, at this stage, we can only observe that if the order of eviction passed by the Tehsildar under Section 91 of the Act has attained finality and has not been challenged and none of the persons affected has taken recourse to remedy of the appeal and there is no interim order, it goes without saying that the order is required to be executed in accordance with the scheme of the Act.

¶25

Subject to the aforesaid observations, this petition is disposed off.”

¶26

The grievance raised is that the respondents are not complying with the order and the land apart from the residential building has been encroached by construction of shop and by doing cultivation.

¶27

Learned counsel for the respondent submits that the parties effected by eviction orders had approached this Court by filing S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.11728/2023 (Ranglal Vs. The State of Rajasthan), S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.9608/2023 and other connected matters and while issuing notice of motion, demolition of the residential house was stayed. Counsel further relies upon the order dated 27.07.2023 Annexure–RA/3 whereby the Sub Divisional Officer, Chirawa had ordered maintaining of status-quo with regard to khasra numbers mentioned therein.

¶28

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the High Court had granted stay only on demolition of residential houses and further submits that on 07.03.2024 the status quo order passed by the SDO Chirawa has been vacated.

¶29

[2024:RJ-JP:12096-DB]

¶30

[CCP-927/2022]

¶31

(3 of 4)

¶32

It would be appropriate to note that this Court while disposing of the writ petition had taken into consideration that no pleadings were made in writ that the order passed under Section 91 of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, 1956 had been challenged in appeal. The directions were that if the eviction order had attained finality and the effected parties had not taken recourse to the legal remedy and there was no interim order, the eviction order should be executed in accordance with law.

¶33

The eviction order is under challenge before the Revenue Authorities as well as in this Court. There was a status quo order granted by the SDO and there is an interim order of this Court for not demolishing the residential houses.

¶34

At this stage reliance is placed by learned counsel for the petitioner upon the interim order passed on 04.12.2023 wherein the application challenging the validity of interim order passed in writ petition was dismissed and in Para-7 it was observed as under :-

¶35

“7. In view of the submissions made, it is expected from the respondents to take necessary steps in terms of the directions issued by the Division Bench and the encroachers, if they are holding land beyond the area stayed by learned Single Judge, they shall be dealt appropriately in terms of the directions issued by this Court.

¶36

List the matter on 15.01.2024.”

¶37

Suffice it to say that while passing of the order dated 04.12.2023, the order passed by the SDO dated 27.07.2023 for maintaining the status-quo was not brought to the notice of the Bench.

¶38

(4 of 4)

¶39

[CCP-927/2022]

¶40

[2024:RJ-JP:12096-DB]

¶41

At this stage, no case is made out for intentional disobedience of the directions of this Court for initiating the contempt proceedings.

¶42

The contempt petition is dismissed.

¶43

The petitioners shall be at liberty to avail remedies in accordance with law for redressal of surviving grievance on conclusion of proceedings challenging the eviction order.

¶44

(BHUWAN GOYAL), J

¶45

(AVNEESH JHINGAN), J

¶46

HS/23

¶47

Reportable:- Yes

Nekiram S/O Nemichand v. Smt. Usha Sharma

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Nekiram S/O Nemichand v. Smt. Usha Sharma

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mahipal Son of Shri Guljhari Lal Vs the Union of India

Rajesh Kumar S/O Shri Hansraj Vs Shri Suresh Kumar Ola

Sujan Singh S/O. Shri Ramjilal Vs Shri Naveen Raj Sharma