[2026:RJ-JP:4987-DB]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR D.B. Civil Contempt Petition No. 1095/2024 In D.B. Civil Writ Petition No.3052/2024

1. Rampal Choudhary S/o Shri Choturam Choudhary, Aged About 65 Years, R/o Gadri Luniyawas, District Jaipur (Rajasthan)

2. Mukesh Kumar Jangid S/o Gyan Chand Jangid, Aged About 34 Years, R/o Luniyawas, District Jaipur (Rajasthan)

----Petitioners Versus

1. Mr. Sudhanshu Pant Senior I.a.s., Chief Secretary, Govt.

Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur

2. Mr. Debasish Prusty, Principal Secretary, Department Of Revenue, Govt. Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur

3. Dr. Jitendra Kumar Soni, District Collector Cum Chairman, Public Land Protection Cell (Plpc), Jaipur

4. Sunita Meena, Sub-Division Officer, Renwal, District Jaipur Rural (Rajasthan)

5. Mamta Yadav, Tehsildar, Tehsil Renwal, District Jaipur Rural

6. State Of Rajasthan, Through Additional Chief Secretary, Department Of Revenue, Govt. Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Sultan Singh Kuri For Respondent(s) : Mr. G.S. Gill, AAG with Mr. Aditya Singh HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDESH BANSAL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR UPMAN

Order

03/02/2026

1. Instant contempt petition raises an issue in respect of disobedience of the order dated 04.03.2024 passed in DB Civil Writ Petition No.3052/2024.

For ready reference, we deem it apposite to reproduce the order dated 04.03.2024 as under:-

“Through this PIL, the grievance was raised that certain persons have encroached upon abadi land of Panchayat area and respondent authorities are not taking appropriate action for removal of encroachments.

We have perused the pleadings and also documents annexed with the petition, the matter is required to be examined by the Tehsil Renwal, District Jaipur Rural. If there are encroachments found at the spot, it goes without saying that appropriate expeditious steps should be taken for removal of encroachment.

Therefore, appropriate inquiry should be made by the respondent No.5 and order should be passed as early as possible.

Since the persons against whom the allegations of encroachments have been made are not party to this petition, this Court is not deciding the issue of encroachment as such. This order has to be treated only as a direction for the purpose of holding an inquiry.

Those who are alleged to be encroacher are required to be heard.

The writ petition is disposed of accordingly.”

2. Having perused the order dated 04.03.2024, it stands clear that directions to hold an inquiry by the Tehsildar, Tehsil Renwal, in respect of encroachment upon the Abadi Land of Panchayat area, were issued. No specific directions for removal of such encroachment, if found after inquiry, were issued.

3. Learned Additional Advocate General appearing on behalf of respondents, in response to the contempt petition, pointed out that Tehsildar asked from the concerned Block Development Officer (BDO) to apprise the encroachment over Abadi area of Panchayat Luniyawas, and in furtherance thereof, BDO has enclosed the list dated 13.05.2024, showing the name of encroachers, furnished by the Gram Panchayat Luniyawas.

4. Learned Additional Advocate General pointed out that the procedure to remove encroachment from the Abadi Land of Panchayat, is envisaged under Rule 165 of the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Rules, 1996 (for short “the Rules of 1996”), and the further action for removal of encroachment or regularization, is to be carried out by a Committee, constituted by the Panchayat. He further submits that there is no role of Tehsildar, for removal of encroachment from the Abadi area of Panchayat.

5. Having pondered over the nature of order dated 04.03.2024 and the inquiry conducted by the concerned Tehsildar, as much as in view of the procedure for removal of encroachment as envisaged under Rule 165 of the Rules of 1996, we do not find that any disobedience of the order dated 04.03.2024 has been committed by the concerned Tehsildar.

6. As a result, the proceedings of instan