Disposed

Jai Till Consultant Pvt. Ltd. v. T. Ravikant

Rajasthan HC18 Sept 2025CCP/696/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Contempt petition alleging respondents' seizure of land violated an interim order restraining dispossession. On the petitioner's undertaking to refrain from commercial activities on the agricultural land, respondents agreed to release the seized land within a week; petition disposed of.

What did the court decide?

Petition disposed of on undertaking; respondents to release seized land within one week, liberty to proceed on construction issue per law

Jai Till Consultant Pvt. Ltd. Vs T. Ravikant — Landlord and Tenant | Rajasthan HC (2025)

¶1

[2025:RJ-JP:38314]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶3

S.B. Civil Contempt Petition No. 696/2024

¶4

Jai Till Consultant Pvt. Ltd., Through Its Director Ashok Jaisinghani Son Of Shri Radha Kishan, aged About 53 Years, Resident Of Vaishali Nagar, Regional College Road, Ajmer.

¶5

----Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

T. Ravikant, Principal Secretary, Department Of Urban And Housing Development, Secretariat Jaipur.

¶8

Dr. Bharti Dixit, District Collector, Ajmer.

¶9

Nitya K, Commissioner, Ajmer Development Authority, Ajmer.

¶10

Bharatraj Gurjar, Land Acqsuisition Officer Cum Prescribed Authority, Ajmer Development Authority, Ajmer.

¶11

State Of Rajasthan Through Its Secretary, Department Of Urban And Housing Development Secretariat, Jaipur.

¶12

----Respondents

¶13

For Petitioner(s)	: Mr. DilipSharma
For Respondent(s)	: Mr. Ajay Singh Mr. Jitendra Shrimali Mr. Pradeep
	Ms. Nitya K. (Commissioner, ADA) Mr. Bharat Raj

¶14

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GANESH RAM MEENA

¶15

Order

¶16

18/09/2025

¶17

This contempt petition has been filed by the petitioner alleging non-compliance of the order dated 08.10.2012.

¶18

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that vide order dated 08.10.2012, the Court had restrained the respondents from dispossessing the petitioner from the land in issue without prior permission of the Court. He further submits that in violation of the aforesaid interim order, the respondents have seized the land in question vide notice 23.10.2024 and the seizure of the land

[2025:RJ-JP:38314]

[CCP-696/2024]

(2 of 2)

property amounts to dispossessing the petitioner from the said land.

¶23

Learned counsel appearing for the respondents submits that the land has been seized in view of the fact that the petitioner is running commercial activities over the agricultural land.

¶24

Today, the counsel for the petitioner has submitted an undertaking of the petitioner that the petitioner himself or through any other person shall not run any kind of commercial activities over the land in issue. The undertaking given by the petitioner is taken on record.

¶25

Counsel appearing for the respondents submits that the petitioner raised illegal construction over the land in question. 6. Taking into consideration the undertaking submitted by the petitioner, the counsel appearing for the respondents, on instructions from the officers of the ADA, states that they will issue the order of releasing the land in issue within a period of one week.

¶26

In view of the undertaking given by the petitioner so also the statement made by the counsel appearing for the respondents for releasing the land in issue, this contempt petition is disposed of.

¶27

It is made clear that the respondents would be at liberty to proceed for seeking permission of the court in writ petition No. 13476/2012 in respect of alleged construction made by the petitioner over the agricultural land and may further proceed in accordance with law.

¶28

(GANESH RAM MEENA),J

¶29

Gaurav Srivastava/Satyendra/33

Jai Till Consultant Pvt. Ltd. v. T. Ravikant

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jai Till Consultant Pvt. Ltd. v. T. Ravikant

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt. Ruksana W/O Mohammad Ramjan Vs Mohammad Ramjan S/O Shri Noor Mohammad

Manju Bala D/O Lalaram Vs State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan Van Mazdoor Mahasangh, Vs State of Rajasthan

Smt. Shyama Kanwar W/O Late Sh. Mahaveer Singh, Vs Smt. Sushila Kanwar W/O Sh. Rajendra Singh D/O Sh. Raghuraj Singh

Chotta Devi W/O Shri Bal Chand Vs Praveen Gupta, State of Rajasthan through Principal Secretary

Jaggo Son of Shri Ramswarop Vs State of Rajasthan