Raghunath Mali vs Joga Ram
2022 Latest Caselaw 14583 Raj

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR D.B. Writ Contempt No. 804/2022

Raghunath Mali, Resident Of Ward No. 4, Near Mamaji Temple, Tehsil Bali, District Pali (Rajasthan)

----Petitioner Versus

1. Joga Ram, Secretary, Department Of Local Self, Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur.

2. State Of Rajasthan, Through Secretary, Department Of Local Self, Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur.

3. Atul Solanki, Vikas Adhikari Panchayat Samiti Bali, District Pali.

4. Fuli W/o Vela Ram, Village Latda, Tehsil Bali, District Pali.

5. Pukhraj Choudhary, Sarpanch, Gram Panchayat Latda, Tehsil Bali, District Pali.

----Respondents

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Moti Singh Mr. Nitesh Mathur For Respondent(s) : Mr. Sunil Beniwal, AAG Mr. Mahendra Vishnoi Mr. KK Rawal

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAY BISHNOI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR GARG

Judgment / Order

12/12/2022

This contempt petition is filed by the petitioner alleging that

the directions given by this Court while deciding DBCWP

No.5036/2021 have not been complied with by the respondent-

Gram Panchayat.

Learned counsel Mr. Mahendra Vishnoi appearing on behalf of

the Sarpanch of the Gram Panchayat concerned has submitted

that pursuant to the directions given by this Court on 18.05.2022

(2 of 2) [WCP-804/2022]

while deciding DBCWP No.5036/2021, the Gram Panchayat has

already decided application filed by the respondent No.4 and took

decision to grant patta in her favour subject to the condition that

she will remove encroachment over the land, which has not been

purchased by her.

Along with reply of the respondent No.5, copy of the decision

of the Gram Panchayat is produced on record as Annex.-1.

Learned counsel Mr. Mahendra Vishnoi has submitted that as

per his information, the respondent No.4 has already removed her

encroachment over the land, which has not been purchased by

her.

At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner has

submitted that as per his information, the encroachment have not

been removed by respondent No.4-Fuli Devi over the land in

question.

Having heard learned counsel for the parties and taking into

consideration the above facts and circumstances of the case, we

are of the opinion that substantial compliance of the order passed

by this Court has been made, therefore, no further order is

required to be passed in this contempt petition.

Hence, this contempt petition is disposed of.

Notices are discharged.

(MANOJ KUMAR GARG),J (VIJAY BISHNOI),J

Surabhii/38-

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)