Back
2025 Supreme(RAJ) 475
HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN (JAIPUR BENCH)
Manindra Mohan Shrivastava, CJ, Uma Shanker Vyas, J
DHARMENDRA MEENA S/O SHRI PANCHU RAM – Appellant
Versus
SUDHANSH PANT – Respondent
CCP / 501 / 2024
Mr. Pawan Sharma, Adv., for Mr. Krishan Chander Sharma, Adv.; Ms. Shikha Sharma, Adv., with Ms. Kritika Sahu, Adv., for Mr. G.S. Gill, AAG; Mr. Ajay Gupta, Adv., with Ms. Sampati Sharma, Adv.
Compliance with court orders negates the basis for contempt proceedings, allowing aggrieved parties to seek remedies through appropriate channels.
Headnote:(A) Contempt of Court - Allegations of wilful disobedience - The court directed the Tehsildar to conclude proceedings regarding encroachment allegations within eight weeks - The Tehsildar subsequently issued an order of dispossession for twelve persons, including private respondents - The court refrained from adjudicating the legality of the Tehsildar's order as compliance with its directive was established. (Paras 1-3)
(B) Compliance with Court Orders - The court emphasized that once compliance is shown, contempt proceedings are not warranted. (Para 3)
Facts of the case:
The contempt petition was filed due to alleged non-compliance with a court order directing the Tehsildar to conclude encroachment proceedings, which was eventually complied with by the Tehsildar.
Findings of Court:
The court found that the Tehsildar had complied with the order and therefore closed the contempt petition.
Issues: The primary issue was whether the Tehsildar's compliance with the court's order was sufficient to dismiss the contempt petition.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that compliance with its order negated the need for further contempt proceedings, allowing aggrieved parties to seek appropriate remedies against the Tehsildar's order.
Result: Contempt petition closed.
Order :
1. Though the case is listed awaiting service of notice on respondents on non-filing of PF to the unserved respondent Nos.7 & 8, we find that this contempt petition was filed alleging wilful disobedience of the order dated 21.11.2023 by which this Court directed the Tehsildar to expeditiously conclude the proceedings on the basis of material collected before it where allegations of encroachment have been made. It was further directed that the Tehsildar shall conclude the proceedings within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of copy of the order, after giving due opportunity of hearing to private respondents in the writ petition namely, Babu Lal Meena, Sitaram Meena, Mukesh Meena & Omprakash Meena.
2. From the reply filed by the State, it reveals that belatedly on 07.02.2024 the Tehsildar has passed an order of dispossession of as many as 12 persons which includes the name of private respondents as well.
3. Though, learned counsel appearing for private respondents would submit that the order of the Tehsildar is illegal, we are not inclined to go into the correctness, legality and validity of the order passed by the Tehsildar in these proceedings. Once the order passed by this Court has been complied with, we are not inclined to proceed further in this contempt petition.
4. Accordingly, the contempt petition is closed. It would however be open for those who are aggrieved by the order of the Tehsildar to take appropriate proceedings, if not already taken.
5. Rule is discharged.
