ORDER :

(PER : HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BHARGAV D. KARIA)

1. Heard learned advocate Mr.Prateek S. Bhatia appearing for the applicant and learned Assistant Government Pleader Mr.Dhawan Jayswal appearing for the respondents.

2. By this application, under the provisions of Section 10 and 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 (for short, the “Act”), the prayer is made to initiate the contempt proceedings against the respondents for willful and deliberate disobedience of the order dated 19.12.2025 passed by this Court in Special Civil Application No.13421 of 2025.

3. Learned advocate Mr.Prateek S. Bhatia submitted that the respondent No.2 is in habit of committing contempt of Court by not obeying the order passed by this Court. It was submitted that this is for the third time that the respondents have disobeyed the order of the Court, which clearly shows that there is willful and deliberate disobedience of the order of the Court, which requires initiation of the proceedings under the provisions of the Act.

4. Regarding the facts of the case, it was submitted that the applicant was constrained to file Special Civil Application No.13421 of 2025 for quashing and setting aside the order dated 16.07.2025 passed by the respondent No.2 – Collector in N.A. Application.

5. It was submitted that Special Civil Application No.13421 of 2025 was allowed vide order dated 19.12.2025 by setting aside the order dated 16.07.2025, rejecting the N.A. Application preferred by the applicant and the learned Single Judge has observed, while allowing the petition, as under:-

“7. Having heard the learned advocates appearing for the respective parties, it is not in dispute that the petitioner herein purchased the land in question in the year 2007. The said sale has attained finality. The same has never been questioned and the same was prior to the year 2010. In light of the aforesaid, considering the case of the respondents as it is, the G.R. of 09.04.2010 would be applicable prospectively and the case of the petitioner would not be bound by the said G.R. Further, it is also not in dispute that the petitioner herein is the occupant of the land in question and was using it for the agriculture purpose and has sought permission for N.A. purpose. The aforesaid issue is no longer res- intergra. The same has attained finality in case of Tushar Ghelani (supra), it is apposite to reproduce para-38 to 40 reads thus:

“38. Thus, the plain reading of section 65 makes it clear that for the purpose of grant of N.A. Permission, the first thing the Collector should look into is whether the applicant, seeking N.A. Permission, is an occupant of the land which is being assessed or held for the purpose of agriculture. For the purpose of ascertaining this, the Collector is expected to look into the revenue records. The name of the applicant in the revenue records would prima facie go to show or rather indicate that he is the occupant of the land. The second step in the process would be to ascertain whether such land is being assessed or held for the purpose of agriculture.

39. Section 65 of the Code provides for the uses to which an occupant of land for the purpose of agriculture may put his land to. If the occupant of the land wishes to use the land for purposes other than the agriculture or agriculture-related activities, he is required to make an application to the Collector for permission to do so. It may be noted that the key-word in Section 65 is the occupant of the land. It is sufficient for the purposes of Section 65, that the person applying for NA Permission is an occupant of the land. It is nowhere stated in the said provision that the applicant should have title or ownership over the land for which NA Permission is sought. The legislature, in its wisdom, has thought it fit that it should suffice if an occupant of the land applies for NA Permission. It is not necessary that such person has to prove his title to the land before he makes an application. The present case is on a fa