[2025:RJ-JP:35612-DB]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR D.B. Civil Contempt Petition No.984/2023 IN D.B. Civil Writ (PIL) Petition No.10565/2023 Giriraj Katariya S/o Dolat Singh Katariya, Aged About 29 Years, Resident Of VPO- Govindgarh, Teh. Chomu, Dist. Jaipur, Rajasthan.

----Petitioner Versus

1. Ms. Aparna Arora, Additional Chief Secretary, Department Of Revenue, Government Secretariat, Jaipur (Raj.)

2. Shri Prakash Rajpurohit, District Collector Jaipur, Dist. Jaipur (Rajasthan)

3. Shri Rajesh Jakhar, Sub Divisional Officer, Chomu, Dist. Jaipur (Rajasthan)

4. Shri Ramji Lal Meena, Sub Tehsildar, Govindgarh, Dist. Jaipur (Rajasthan)

5. State Of Rajasthan, through The Principal Secretary, Revenue Department, Secretariat, Jaipur (Rajasthan)

----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Ms. Malti for Mr. Prakash Lamba For Respondent(s) : Mr. Manoj Kumar for Mr. G.S. Gill, AAG HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AVNEESH JHINGAN HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BALJINDER SINGH SANDHU

Order

04/09/2025

1. This petition is filed pleading willful disobedience of order dated 17.07.2023 passed in D.B. CWP No.10565/2023. The operational part of the order is reproduced below:-

“4. In that view of the matter, the writ petition stands disposed off in view of the directions issued by the Division Bench in the case of Jagdish Prashad Meena (supra) and the petitioner is at liberty to make a representation before PLPC and the respondents are directed to decide the same within a period of two months.

5. Considering that this petition has been disposed off at the motion stage, it is made clear that this Court has not commented upon the merits of the case, but only directed inquiry on the complaint as per the order passed in the case of Jagdish Prashad Meena (supra)

6. It is further directed that in the inquiry for removal of the encroachment, the persons, who are alleged to be encroachers, shall be afforded an opportunity of hearing.”

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that contradictory stands have been taken by the respondents during pendency of the petition. On one hand it is submitted that encroachments identified have been removed whereas in the additional affidavit it is pleaded that the encroachments were not removed as the proceedings were pending. From the perusal of the directions of this Court, it is evident that Public Land Protection Cell (PLPC) had to decide the representation within a period of two months. As per the stand of the respondents the order of the decision has not been passed but proceedings for removal of encroachment have been initiated. The factual aspect as to what extent the encroachments have been removed or not, is the disputed question of fact.

3. This petition is disposed of giving last opportunity to Public Land Protection Cell (PLPC) to decide and pass a speaking order on the representation of the petitioner. The needful be done within two months.

4. Needless to say that petitioner shall be at liberty to avail alternative remedy available in accordance with law if aggrieved with the decision of the PLPC.

(BALJINDER SINGH SANDHU),J (AVNEESH JHINGAN),J DANISH USMANI /01 Powerd by TCPDF (w.tcpdf.org)