Rajasthan High Court
Kamlesh Kishore S/O Shri ... vs Mr. Gaurav Goyal on 7 February, 2022
Bench: Manindra Mohan Shrivastava, Anoop Kumar Dhand
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
D.B. Civil Contempt Petition No.557/2016
In
D.B. Civil Restoration Application No.109/2013
In
D.B. Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No.646/2012
Kamlesh Kishore S/o Shri Shitaldas, aged about 47 years, R/o
Plot No. 55, Shyam Colony, Sitabadi, Tonk Road, Jaipur
Rajasthan (Aadhar No.674474406557)
----Petitioner
Versus
1. Mr. Gaurav Goyal, Commissioner, Jaipur Development
Authority, Jaipur.
2. Abu Sufiyan Chauhan, Dy. Commissioner, Zone-4, Jaipur
Development Authority, Jawahar Lal Nehru Marg, Opposite Birla
Mandir, Jaipur, Rajasthan.
----Respondents/Contemnor
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Siddharth Bapna through VC
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Amit Kuri through VC
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND
Order
07/02/2022
Heard.
This contempt petition has been filed alleging willful
disobedience of the order dated 16.12.2011 passed by the learned
Single Judge and later on affirmed by the Division Bench vide
order dated 02.07.2014.
The respondents have now, though belatedly, come out with
the stand and also placed before the court a copy of lease deed
which has been executed in favour of the petitioner. At the same
time, according to respondents a SLP has now been preferred in
the Supreme Court which is pending consideration.
(2 of 2) [CCP-557/2016]
We find that the respondent-authorities have executed lease
deed in favour of the petitioner. The scope and ambit of
proceedings which culminated in issuance of orders passed by this
court earlier related to petitioner's right to get lease in respect of
the land for which he had applied for. Now that lease has been
executed on certain terms and conditions, we are not inclined to
proceed further in the matter, though we record our anguish that
it was at the cost of filing of the contempt petition that the order
of the court came to be complied with after a long time. Since SLP
has already been preferred by the petitioner, we would not make
any further comment on the judgment.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has sought to draw
attention of this court that certain peculiar terms and conditions
have been imposed on the petitioner while granting lease, which
are not in accordance with law.
Since the order of which contempt has been alleged did not
examine, nor issue any direction with regard to issuance of lease
on particular terms and conditions only, nor there is any order that
particular terms and conditions shall not be imposed, we are of
the view that after execution of lease in favour of the petitioner,
this contempt petition cannot be continued further.
We grant liberty to the petitioner to challenge the terms and
conditions in the lease which has now been executed in his favour,
which according to him is not palatable to him.
This contempt petition is accordingly closed.
Rule stands discharged.
(ANOOP KUMAR DHAND),J (MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA),J
Karan/40
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
