Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 2049 (RAJ)

Narayan Lal v. Rajendra Singh Chandawat

2014-12-09

ARUN BHANSALI

body2014
JUDGMENT 1. - This contempt petition has been filed by the petitioner alleging wilful disobedience of order dated 14.07.2004 as confirmed by order dated 04.09.2006. 2. The writ petition was filed by the petitioner questioning the cancellation of allotment made in favour of petitioner's father pertaining to land comprised in Khasra No.1908. The cancellation was upheld upto the Board of Revenue and when this writ petition came up before this Court, by order dated 14.07.2004 the parties were directed to maintain status quo regarding the possession in question. The parties to the writ petition were State through Tehsildar, Pindwara, Collector, Sirohi, Revenue Appellate Authority, Sirohi and Board of Revenue, Ajmer. 3. The order dated 14.07.2004 came to be confirmed by order dated 04.09.2006, whereby, it was directed that the petitioner would deposit Rs. 500/- per bigha per year in the joint account of the petitioner and the SDO concerned in fixed deposit in a scheduled Bank. 4. It is stated that the directions dated 04.09.2006 are being complied with by the petitioner. It is then alleged that the Gram Panchayat through its Sarpanch vide its notice dated 21.07.2011 alleged that the petitioner was raising construction of boundary and was trespassing on land comprised in Khasra No.279 and 1908, which was Gair Mumkin Gochar land and, therefore, it should be stopped from doing so. It is claimed that though the notice was served on the petitioner on 22.07.2011 on 21st itself after sending of notice to the Police Station, the activity being undertaken by the petitioner qua his own land, which is only comprised in Khasra No.1908 was stopped and JCB was attached. 5. Whereafter, the news was published in newspaper. 6. Notices were issued to the respondents i.e. to the Sarpanch, Jhadoli as well as to the Tehsildar, Pindwara, District - Sirohi. 7. While, the Tehsildar has not appeared, a reply to contempt petition has been filed by Sarpanch of the Gram Panchayat. Wherein, allegations have been made that the petitioner was trying to encroach upon the land comprised in Khasra No.279 and was stopped from doing so. It is also alleged that in fact notice was sent also on 20.07.2011, which was refused and, therefore, on 21st action was undertaken. 8. Wherein, allegations have been made that the petitioner was trying to encroach upon the land comprised in Khasra No.279 and was stopped from doing so. It is also alleged that in fact notice was sent also on 20.07.2011, which was refused and, therefore, on 21st action was undertaken. 8. Rejoinder and further pleadings have been filed by the parties making allegations and counter-allegations against each other including the fact that the respondent No.2 Smt. Shanta Devi Garg despite removal from her position as Sarpanch was still seeking to interfere and was filing affidavits before this Court. 9. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently submitted that the action of the respondents in stopping the petitioner from protecting his possession by way of construction of Medbandi amounts to wilful disobedience of order passed by this Court. 10. It is submitted that the petitioner is in possession of land comprised in Khasra No.1908 only and the allegations regarding trespass on land comprised in Khasra No.279 are false and baseless and the said plea has been raised only with a view to harass the petitioner. 11. During the course of submissions, learned counsel has brought to the notice of this Court, a communication from Patwari, Jharoli to the Tehsildar, Pindwara, inter alia, indicating that the land in Khasra No.279 admeasures 13 bigha 10 biswa, in which, 5 bigha was 'Gochar and 8 bigha 10 biswa was school and after measurement, the area of Khasra No.279 is complete and whereafter, the possession of the petitioner herein starts on Khasra No.1908, which is not Gochar, but was Bilanaam Banjar and as per the said status, the proposal to make partition on the Map and Jamabandi was proposed. 12. Learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the attempt on part of the petitioner has been to take advantage of the order passed pertaining to land comprised in Khasra No. 1908 for encroaching on land in Khasra No.279 and, therefore, the Gram Panchayat was justified in stopping the petitioner from trespass. It was further submitted that the respondent Shanta Devi has been impleaded as party in her individual capacity and, therefore, even if, she is not Sarpanch of the Gram Panchayat, she is entitled to file affidavits and no exception can be taken to the same. 13. I have considered the rival submissions. 14. It was further submitted that the respondent Shanta Devi has been impleaded as party in her individual capacity and, therefore, even if, she is not Sarpanch of the Gram Panchayat, she is entitled to file affidavits and no exception can be taken to the same. 13. I have considered the rival submissions. 14. As noticed hereinbefore, the parties to the writ petition have been the Tehsildar, the Collector, the Revenue Appellate Authority and the Board of Revenue being the Authorities, who had passed the impugned orders, neither the Gram Panchayat nor the Sarpanch was party to the writ petition. It is not even the case of the petitioner that the Gram Panchayat/the Sarpanch were aware of the interim order passed by this Court before the event happened on 21.07.2011 and in these circumstances, it cannot be said that the Gram Panchayat and/or the Sarpanch has/have committed wilful disobedience of order passed by this Court. 15. So far as the Fardmauka (Annexure - 5) filed by the petitioner showing the presence of the Nayab Tehsildar is concerned, the said Nayab Tehsildar has not been impleaded as party to the present contempt petition instead the Tehsildar impleaded as party. 16. Besides the above, the said Annexure - 5 specifically pertains to Khasra No.279 admeasuring 5 bigha and, therefore, even based on the said document, it cannot be said that the land pertaining to Khasra No.1908, subject matter of the writ petition, the respondents have taken any action. 17. The document produced by the petitioner indicating the status of the land being situated next to each other and there being no specific demarcation, appears to be the reasons for the respondents despite orders of this Court seeking to take action qua Khasra No.1908, if at all. 18. The position now having been cleared by the communication dated 28.01.2014, it is apparent that the action of 21.07.2011 cannot be said to be a deliberate disobedience of the order passed by this Court.Consequently, the notices issued are discharged. The contempt petition is dismissed.Contempt Petition dismissed. *******