SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2026 Supreme(Online)(Raj) 57

HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN (JAIPUR BENCH)
SUDESH BANSAL, SANDEEP TANEJA
RAM NARAYAN MEENA S/O SHRI BHANWAR LAL MEENA – Appellant
Versus
SHRI NIRANJAN ARYA – Respondent
CCP / 54 / 2022



[2026:RJ-JP:224-DB]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN

BENCH AT JAIPUR

D.B. Civil Contempt Petition No. 54/2022

Ram Narayan Meena S/o Shri Bhanwar Lal Meena, Aged About 49 Years, Resident Of Ward No. 8, Purana Bazar, Diggi, Tehsil Malpura, Distt. Tonk(Raj.) Mobile No. 8306699552 Pan No.

Apypno0952K.

----Petitioner

Versus

1. Shri Niranjan Arya, Chief Secretary, Government Of

Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur.

2. Shri Anand Kumar, Principal Secreary Revenue

Department, Government Of Rajasthan, Secretariat,

Jaipur.

3. Ms Chinmayi Gopal District Collector, Tonk

4. Suresh Choudhary Secretary/village Development Officer,

Gram Panchayat Diggi, Tehsil Malpura, District Tonk,

5. The State Of Rajasthan Through The Chief Secretary,

Government Secretariat, Government Of Rajasthan,

Jaipur (Rajasthan)

----Respondents

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Laxmi Kant Malpura For Respondent(s) : Mr. G. S. Gill, AAG with

Mr. Manoj Kumar

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDESH BANSAL

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP TANEJA

Order

06/01/2026

BY THE COURT : (Per Hon’ble S andeep Taneja, J. )

1. The petitioner has filed the instant Civil Contempt Petition alleging non compliance of the order dated 07.09.2021 passed in D.B. Civil Writ Petition (PIL) No.9648/2021. For ready reference, the operative portion of the order dated 07.09.2021 reads as

under: -

“In view of the above order, the petitioner is directed

to approach Respondent No.3 by filing a detailed

representation along with copy of this order and the grievances of the petitioner shall be examined by Respondent No.3 and needful be done within a period of three months from the date of filing of the representation”.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in pursuance of the aforesaid order, the petitioner submitted a representation dated 10.09.2021 to the District Collector, Tonk, seeking removal of encroachments from the Charagah land situated in Village/Gram Panchayat Diggi, Tehsil Malpura, District Tonk. However, despite due service of notices, the respondent- authorities failed to remove the encroachments from the land in question. Petitioner has made a specific allegation that husband and brother-in-law of District Representative of Zila Parishad namely Geeta Meena have also made encroachments on some part of the land in question.

3. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents submits that in compliance with the order dated 07.09.2021, the District Collector, Tonk, vide letter dated 20.09.2021, issued directions to the Sub-Divisional Officer, Malpura, to remove the encroachments from the land in question. In pursuance thereof, the Nayab Tehsildar, Diggi, was appointed as Mauka Commissioner. The Nayab Tehsildar, Diggi, initiated the process for removal of encroachments on 25.01.2022 and the encroachments were removed during the period from 25.01.2022 to 04.02.2022.

3.1 Learned counsel for the respondents further submits that insofar as the standing crop on the land in question is concerned, the same was forfeited in accordance with law and was subsequently put to auction.

3.2 Learned counsel also submits that the Naib Tehsildar, Diggi, issued notices under Section 91 of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) to all the encroachers and after following the due process under law 50 times penalty was recovered from them.

3.3 Learned Counsel further submitted that one of the alleged encroacher filed a Civil Miscellaneous Application No.28/2022 in D.B. Civil Writ Petition (PIL) No.9648/2021 seeking recall/ modification /clarification of the order dated 07.09.2021 stating that he was not an encroacher and he was in valid possession under the Authority of law on the land since more than two decades. The said application was disposed of by this Court vide order dated 08.04.2022 with the direction to the respondent- authorities to hear everyone who is alleged to be encroacher of the land-in-dispute, affording him an opportunity of hearing, considering the material on record and then take appropriate decision in ac

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top