Contempt of Court jurisdiction cannot be invoked to execute civil decrees or implement orders where alternative statutory execution procedures exist; it is reserved for clear cases of willful and deliberate disobedience, and repeated filing of contempt petitions after a prior dismissal on merits constitutes an abuse of process.

Order

08/01/2026

REPORTABLE

1. In the main Contempt Petition, petitioners alleged non-compliance of the judgment/ final order dated 23.05.2022 passed in D.B. Civil Writ Petition (PIL) No. 4716/2022, but after submission of reply to the Contempt Petition and Additional Affidavit showing compliance, in the rejoinder, petitioners stated non-compliance of the orders dated 04.12.2023 and 10.03.2025 as well and prayed to ensure compliance of such orders.

2. During course of Contempt Petition, misc. application (1/2025) was filed by few applicants seeking impleadment, stating inter alia, that applicants are not encroachers over the pasture land, yet in the guise of seeking compliance of order dated 23.05.2022, for removal of encroachment over pasture land, their authorized construction and possession is being sought to be removed. This application was decided vide interim order dated 03.11.2025 and applicants were allowed to assist the Court as intervenors.

3. Another misc. application (2/2025) has been filed by and on behalf of 22 applicants, stating inter alia, that they have filed S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 13399/2023 and S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 11728/2023, challenging the eviction order and in such writ petitions, interim stay order is operating in their favour and writ petitions are pending, yet petitioners are trying to create pressure upon the respondents-authorities to demolish their construction and dispossess them from residential houses, hence, applicants be allowed to be impleaded and heard in the present contempt proceedings. This application is pending and has also been heard.

4. Heard learned counsels for respective parties and perused the record.

5. It appears that petitioners filed D.B. Civil Writ Petition (PIL) No. 4716/2022 raising a grievance that despite passing an eviction order dated 04.08.2021 by the Tehsildar in exercise of powers under Section 91 of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act of 1956”), order has not been executed and encroachments from pasture and Government land have not been removed. In the writ petition, encroachment over the pasture land situated at Village Ajitpura having Survey Nos. 177, 184, 215, 245, 257, 388/188, 395/283, 396/284 and at Village Nunia Gothda, having Survey Nos. 11, 13, 159, 187 and 280 and encroachment over the land of Gair Mumkin Kabristan recorded in Revenue Record under Survey Nos. 24, 28, 35, 404/29 and 405/30 situated at Village Nunia Gothda, which is stated to be used as pasture land since Muslims left for Pakistan, were alleged.

6. It appears that the Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court, disposed of the Writ Petition (PIL) vide judgment/ final order dated 23.05.2022 with observation that if the order of eviction passed by the Tehsildar under Section 91 of the Act of 1956, has attained finality and has not been challenged and none of the persons affected has taken recourse to remedy of appeal and there is no interim order, it goes without saying that the order is required to be executed in accordance with Scheme of the Act.

7. A bare perusal of the judgment/ order dated 23.05.2022 goes to show that the order only talks about that if the eviction order has attained finality or no interim order operates against the eviction order, same is required to be executed in accordance with Scheme of the Act of 1956. The manner and procedure