Back
2023 Supreme(Raj) 126
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR
Manindra Mohan Shrivastava, Kuldeep Mathur, JJ.
Mukesh Mul Chand Ji Purohit S/o Shri Mul Chand - Petitioner
Versus
Shri Anand Kumar, Secretary, Department Of Revenue and ors. - Respondents
D.B. Writ Contempt No. 433 of 2022
Decided On : 21-03-2023
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Mr. Moti Singh
For the Respondent:Mr. Manoj Bhandari, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Himanshu Bumb, Mr. Sunil Beniwal, AAG
Point of law: If they have any grievance against the proceedings which have been drawn against them and the order passed by the District Collector or the Tehsildar or any other authority, adversely affecting their right to possess any particular property, their remedy lies in approaching the appropriate forum, either by way of appeal or any other remedy, as may be available to them under the law.
Headnote:
Land Revenue Act - Section 91- Contempt petition - Disobedience of order - Removal of encroachments - Contempt petition came to be filed by petitioner alleging willful disobedience of order - Applications for impleadment as party respondents and directions were issued to filed amended cause title within two weeks but as per office report - If they have any grievance against the proceedings which have been drawn against them and the order passed by the District Collector or the Tehsildar or any other authority, adversely affecting their right to possess any particular property, their remedy lies in approaching the appropriate forum, either by way of appeal or any other remedy, as may be available to them under the law.
Finding of Court :
Court must clarify that there is no direction by this Court as such to remove those persons - This Court directed enquiry to be made and then to remove encroachers - It goes without saying that whenever a person is going to be adversely affected by any proceeding or order he is entitled to an opportunity of hearing - However court are unable to entertain complaint made by these persons in this contempt petition.
Result: Petition disposed off.
ORDER :
1. Heard.
2. Mr. Moti Singh learned counsel for the petitioner.
3. Mr. Sunil Beniwal, learned AAG for the respondent-State and Mr. Manoj Bhandari, learned Senior Advocate for newly impleaded respondents.
4. On 06.02.2023, this Court had allowed the applications for impleadment as party respondents and directions were issued to file the amended cause title within two weeks but as per the office report, the amended cause title has not been filed till date.
5. This contempt petition came to be filed by the petitioner alleging willful disobedience of the order dated 16.03.2021 passed by the Division Bench of this Court in D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4324/2021 [Mukesh Mul Chand Ji Purohit Vs. The State of Rajasthan & Ors.].
6. The aforesaid writ petition, as is reflected from the order, came to be filed with allegations of widespread encroachments over the Oran/Aagor/Gochar/pasture land of Village Odwara, Tehsil Ahore, District Jalore. This Court, taking into consideration various earlier directions, particularly, the direction issued by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Jagdish Prasad Meena & Ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.[D.B. Civil Writ Petition (PIL) No. 10819/2018], disposed off the writ petition with the observation that the petitioner may approach the Public Land Protection Cell (‘PLPC’ for short) of District Jalore constituted pursuant to the directions issued by this Court in the case of Jagdish Prasad Meena (supra). It was further observed that the representation shall be considered by the PLPC in accordance with law.
7. After the order was passed, as is reflected from various orders which have been placed on record, particularly, the order dated 22.12.2021 passed by the District Collector, Jalore, that enquiry was conducted and according to the Tehsildar, there were 335 persons, who are encroachers. The District Collector proceeded to pass the order for removal of the encroachers.
8. This contempt petition came to be filed by the petitioner with the pleadings that the order passed by this Court has not been compiled with in its true letter and spirit. According to learned counsel for the petitioner, the PLPC was under an obligation to pass appropriate order in view of the judgment passed by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Jagdish Prasad Meena (supra) but the District Collector has abdicated his functions as the Chairman of the said Committee and is only completing formality by simply directing the Tehsildar to take appropriate action.
9. In the reply filed by the respondents-alleged contemnors, it has been stated that in compliance of the order passed by this Court, enquiry was got made, large number of encroachers in the Village were identified and when this material was placed before the District Collector, the District Collector directed the Tehsildar to initiate proceedings. He would submit that under the provisions of the Land Revenue Act, the Tehsildar is the competent authority to initiate proceedings for removal of the encroachments under Section 91 of the Land Revenue Act. He submits that proceedings are being initiated in all the cases. In the reply, it has been stated that till filing of the reply, 67 encroachers were already removed and the proceedings for removal of other encroachers are still going on.
10. It appears that when the enquiry was made by the Tehsildar and about 335 persons were found to be encroachers, which led the District Collector to pass the order dated 22.12.2021, large number of persons felt aggrieved by the proceedings drawn by the authorities towards removal of their possession by treating them as encroachers. 200 such persons sought impleadment in this contempt petition. Their case is that all of them are having valid authority of possession on the strength of title documents. Predicament of these newly added respondents-alleged encroachers was that even though this Court has not decided the issue as to whether those 200 persons are encroachers or not,
