##PAGE1##

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN

BENCH AT JAIPUR

S.B. Civil Contempt Petition No.127/2025

Jyoti Bhadana Wife of Sh. Vikram Bhadana

----Petitioner

Versus

Sh. Shaitan Singh Yadav & Ors.

----Respondents

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. J.P. Goyal, Sr. Advocate assisted

by Mr. Ram Babu Khandelwal &

Ms. Ronak Bansal

For Respondent(s) : Mr. R.K. Mathur, Sr. Advocate assisted

by Mr. Lucky Sharma &

Mr. Deependra Yadav

Mr. Jai Raj Tantia

Mr. Manoj Choudhary with

Ms. Pooja Dixit &

Mr. Yadhvender Patel on behalf of

Mr. G.S. Gill, AAG

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANAND SHARMA

Order

28/01/2026

This contempt petition has been filed by the petitioner

alleging wilful and deliberate disobedience of order dated

08.02.2024 passed by Land Settlement Officer-cum-Revenue

Appellate Authority, Alwar.

At the outset, learned counsel for the respondents raised a

preliminary objection that contempt petition under Section 12 of

the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 (for short, ‘the Act of 1971’),

alleging non-compliance of an order passed by the Revenue Court

cannot be directly filed by the petitioner before this Court and the

proper procedure would be to file the same before the concerned

Court and in case, concerned Court after preliminary enquiry

deems it proper, may refer the contempt petition to this Court.

(Uploaded on 30/01/2026 at 10:22:09 AM)

(Downloaded on 31/01/2026 at 11:19:40 AM)

(2 of 3) [CCP-127/2025]

Learned counsel for the respondents relies upon Section 10

of the Act of 1971, where this Court has power to punish for

contempt of Sub-ordinate Courts also. He further submits that the

term 'Sub-ordinate Court' is to be read in consonance with Article

235 of the Constitution of India. The Revenue Court not being

Sub-ordinate Court to this Court, therefore, power to punish for

contempt cannot be exercised directly without the issue being

referred by the Competent Authority to this Court.

Per contra, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the

petitioner relied upon Articles 215 & 227 of the Constitution of

India as well as the judgment delivered by the Hon'ble Supreme

Court in the case of S.K. Sarkar, Member, Board of Revenue,

U.P., Luchnow vs. Vinay Chandra Misra reported in 1981 (1)

SCC 436, wherein it has been held that since under Article 227 of

the Constitution of India, the High Court has the power of

superintendence over all the Courts and Tribunal to order directly

in relation to which it exercise jurisdiction, the Revenue Courts,

therefore, would also be considered Sub-ordinate to the High

Court for the purposes of Section 10 of the Act of 1971.

This Court finds that the objection raised by the learned

counsel for the respondents has got larger ramification as it would

affect number of contempt petitions directly entertained by this

Court. Hence, this Court requests learned Advocate General to

assist this Court in this matter.

Learned counsel for the petitioner is directed to serve two

copies of the contempt petition along with copy of this order in the

office of learned Advocate General.

(Uploaded on 30/01/2026 at 10:22:09 AM)

(Downloaded on 31/01/2026 at 11:19:40 AM)

(3 of 3) [CCP-127/2025]

Office is directed to reflect name of Mr. Sheetanshu Sharma,

associate of learned Advocate General, in the cause list as counsel

for the respondents.

Let the matter be listed on 23^rd February, 2026.

(ANAND SHARMA),J

DAKSH/33

(Uploaded on 30/01/2026 at 10:22:09 AM)

(Downloaded on 31/01/2026 at 11:19:40 AM)