Smt Anokhi Devi vs The State Of Raj And Ors
2022 Latest Caselaw 186 Raj/2

      HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
                  BENCH AT JAIPUR

            S.B. Civil Contempt Petition No. 252/2018

                                         IN

               S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.1576/2017

Smt. Anokhi Devi W/o Shri Satyanarayan Brambhatt, R/o Shiv
Colony, Teh. Phagi, Distt. Jaipur, Rajasthan.
                                                                     ----Petitioner
                                     Versus
1.     The State Of Rajasthan Through Principal Secretary,
       Revenue, Government Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur.
2.     Shri Siddhart Mahajan I.a.s., District Collector, Jaipur.
3.     Shri Sawan Kumar Chayal, R.a.s., Sub Divisional Officer,
       Phagi, Tehsil Phagi, Distt. Jaipur.
4.     Shri Raish Ahamad, Tehsildar, Phagi, Tehsil Phagi, Distt.
       Jaipur, Raj.
                                                                  ----Respondents

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Rajkumar Tongawat along with S/o petitiner Mr. Ravi Shanker Brahmin Bhatt, through VC For Respondent(s) : Mr. Anil Mehta, AAG

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDESH BANSAL

Judgment

10/01/2022

1. This contempt petition has been preferred by the petitioner

for non-compliance of the directions given by this Court in the

order dated 27.02.2017 in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.1576/2017,

stating that on the land of Khasra No.3695 over an area of 3

biswa, two private persons namely, Shri Buddhi Prakash Sharma

and Shri Nandkishor Sharma have raised encroachment and have

constructed the shops, which have not been removed by the

(2 of 6) [CCP-252/2018]

respondents and the orders dated 27.02.2017 has been defied by

respondents.

2. Learned counsel for petitioner in order to make compliance

of the order dated 27.02.2017 submitted a representation before

the respondents-authorities on 27.03.2017 and then 03.10.2017

(Annxure Nos.2 & 3) along with the previous representation dated

19.11.2016 (Annexure No.5). The grievance of the petitioner is

that her representations have not been considered in their

entirety, and although it is apparent from the report of Patwari

dated 08.05.2014 (Annexure No.7) that over the land of 3 biswa

of Khasra No.3696 encroachment exists and due to which the flow

of the pond's water has been obstructed. It has not been disputed

that such 3 biswa land of Khasra No.3696 has been recorded as

3695/3 rakba 0.03 kism "chahi 3" in jamabandi Samwat 2068-71

in the khatedar of Shri Buddhi Prakash Sharma under the Khata

No.312 since 1979. Learned counsel for petitioner also alleged

that the revenue record was manipulated and respondents have

not examined the matter closely as such for non-compliance of the

order dated 27.02.2017 respondents be suitably punished in the

present contempt proceedings.

3. The respondents have filed a reply to the contempt petition

on 28.02.2018 alleging inter alia that in compliance of the order

dated 27.02.2017, team of revenue department was constituted

to look into the matter and after due inspection the site, a mauka

report dated 05.10.2017 was prepared and then after considering

such mauka report, a speaking order dated 12.01.2018 has been

passed by the District Collector, Jaipur. The mauka report and the

order dated 12.01.2018 has been placed on record as annexure

CR-1 & CR-2 and representations of petitioner have been decided.

(3 of 6) [CCP-252/2018]

4. In the order dated 12.01.2018, passed by the District

Collector, Jaipur, the relevant portion is as under:-

"izkfFkZ;k }kjk izLrqr vH;kosnu ds laca/k esa mi[k.M vf/kdkjh Qkxh ls oLrqfLFkfr dh fjiksVZ eaxokbZ xbZA ftlds laca/k esa mi[k.M vf/kdkjh us rglhynkj ds ek/;e ls oLrqfLFkfr Li"V djkrs gq;s fuEukuqlkj fjiksVZ bl dk;kZy; dks izsf"kr dh%& 1- ;g gS fd eqrkfcd ekSdk QnZ uk;c rglhynkj Qkxh xzke Qkxh mRrj ds eqrkfcd lsVyesaV [krkSuh laor~ 2011&30 esa vkjkth [kljk u- 3695 jdck 22&09 ch?kk Hkwfe dh fdLe xS0 eq0 jkLrk ntZ FkkA 2- ;g gS fd dkykUrj esa mDr [kljk u- esa ls ukekUrdj.k la[;k 1510 Qsly fnukad 13-6-1979 ls 7 fcLok Hkwfe vyh eksgEen iq= ckSnw tkfr eqlyeku dks fu;eu dh xbZ FkhA ijUrq orZeku pkyw tekcUnh esa mDr vkjkth [kljk ua0 [email protected] jdck 7 fcLok [kkrsnkj eatw nsoh iRuh dSyk'k pUn fgLlk [email protected] lqeu nsoh iRuh jkefoykl tkfr czkge.k lk0 Qkxh ds uke ntZ fjdkWMZ gSA 3- ;g gS fd blh izdkj mDr [kljk u0 3695 esa ls 3 fcLok Hkwfe dsljyky iq= y{ehukjk;.k tkfr ckjkxkao fpUnkSyk lk0 Qkxh dks fu;eu gqbZ gSA ftldk ukekUrdj.k la[;k 1511 fnukad 13-6-1979 ls gqvk FkkA orZeku esa ;g Hkwfe cqf)izdk'k 'kekZ iq= ca'khyky tkfr ckjkxkao fpUnkSyk fuoklh Qkxh ds uke ntZ fjdkWMZ gSA 4- ;g gS fd dkykarj esa vkoaVu ds [kljk u0 [email protected] jdck 2 ch?kk 3 fcLok Hkwfe jktdh; izkFkfed fo|ky; ikcwth dh <k.kh Qkxh dks [email protected] vikVZ gS] tks orZeku jktLo fjdkWMZ esa ntZ gSA 5- ;g gS fd blh izdkj [email protected] vikVZ ls [kljk ua0 [email protected] jdck 1 ch?kk Hkwfe jktdh; ckfydk mPp ek/;fed fo|ky; Qkxh ¼Nk=kokl½ dks vkoafVr gSA 6- ;g gS fd 'ks"k jdck orZeku esa [kljk ua0 [email protected] jdck 18 ch?kk 16 fcLok xS0 eq0 jkLrk ntZ fjdkWMZ gSA 7- ;g gS fd miyC/k uD'kk dh gkyr th.kZ&'kh.kZ rFkk iqjkuk gSA mDr of.kZr ikapksa VqdM+s 3695 ds gSA budh uD'kk yV~Bk esa rjehe ugha gSA izfroknh la[;k 5 dks [kljk ua- [email protected] jdck fcLok dh [kkrsnkjh gSA izfroknh la[;k 5 dk iq[rk [kljk u0 [email protected] jdck 3 fcLok dh [kkrsnkjh gSA izfroknh la[;k 5 dk iq[rk fuekZ.k gS] tks fd orZeku esa 3 fcLok ls vf/kd ugha gSA izfroknh la[;k 6 uUnfd'kksj dk bl [kljk esa uk rks [kkrsnkjh gS vkSj uk gh vkfnukad fdlh izdkj vuks[kh nsoh iRuh Jh lR;ukjk;.k izfroknh la[;k 5 dk tks vfrØe.k crkrh gS og Hkwfe izfroknh la[;k 5 dh [kkrsnkjh Hkwfe gSA izfroknh la[;k 6 dk orZeku esa dksbZ vfrØe.k ugha gSA izkfFkZ;k }kjk izLrqr vH;kosnu] rglhynkj [email protected][k.M vf/kdkjh Qkxh dh vksj ls izLrqr oLrqfLFkfr dk voyksdu fd;k x;kA rglhynkj Qkxh us viuh fjiksVZ esa Li"V fd;k gS fd [kljk u0 3695 ds ikap VqdM+s gks x;s gS mijksDr VqdM+ksa ds mijkUr [kljk u0 [email protected] jdck 18 ch?kk 16 fcLok xS0 eq0 jkLrk ntZ gS] [kljk u0 [email protected] jdck 7 fcLok [kkrsnkj eatw nsoh fgLlk [email protected] o lqeu nsoh fgLlk [email protected] ntZ gSA [kljk u0 [email protected] esa 3 fcLok Hkwfe dsljyky ds uke fu;eu gqbZ o cqf)izdk'k ds uke ntZ gSA [kljk u0 [email protected] jdck 2 ch?kk 3 fcLok Hkwfe jktdh; izkFkfed fo|ky; ikcwth dh <k.kh dks [email protected] vikVZ gS ,oa [kljk u0 [email protected] jdck 1 ch?kk Hkwfe

(4 of 6) [CCP-252/2018]

jktdh; ckfydk mPp ek/;fed fo+|ky; ¼Nk=kokl½ Qkxh dks vkoafVr gSA bl izdkj [kljk u0 [email protected] ftlesa ;kfpdkdrkZ }kjk vfrØe.k gksuk vafdr fd;k gS esa izfroknh la[;k 5 cqf)izdk'k dh 3 fcLok dh [kkrsnkjh gksuk o fdlh izdkj dk vfrØe.k ugha gksuk vafdr fd;k gSA izkfFkZ;k }kjk izLrqr vH;kosnu esa vafdr rF;ksa ds lEcU/k esa miyC/k fjiksVZ ds vuqlkj mijksDr [kljk esa vfrØe.k ugha ik;s tkus ds dkj.k izkfFkZ;k }kjk izLrqr vH;kosnu [kkfjt fd;s tkus ;ksX; gSA vr% mDr vH;kosnu ,rr~ }kjk [kkfjt fd;k tkrk gSA"

5. From the side of petitioner, one miscellaneous application

dated 16.03.2018 has been filed, stating that there is

manipulation in the revenue record and the land of Khasra

No.3695/3 is the land of the pond through which the water flows

and the same has been obstructed by the private respondent-Shri

Buddhi Prakash Sharma, therefore, the same deserves to be

removed following the ratio of law, as propounded in case of

Abdul Rahman Versus State of Rajasthan & Ors. Reported

in 2004 (4) WLC (Raj.) 435.

6. In that view of matter, this Court, vide order dated

26.09.2018, directed the Collector, Jaipur to look into the issue of

encroachment as alleged and to submit his affidavit in this regard.

The Collector has filed his affidavit on 26.10.2018, while replying

the aforesaid miscellaneous application dated 16.03.2018 which is

duly supported by the affidavit of then District Collector, Shri

Siddharth Mahajan, Jaipur. It is contended that the land of Khasra

No.3695 is being used for transportation and it is a land of "gair

mumkin rasta" and not recorded as land of pond. It has also been

contended that regular flow of pond's water has not been found

even through the said land. It has been contended that in fact the

actual dispute is with regard to 3 biswa land of Khasra No.3695,

which exists between the two private persons including petitioner

and the private persons Shri Buddhi Prakash Sharma and others.

(5 of 6) [CCP-252/2018]

It has also been contended that petitioner's husband, had filed a

regular civil suit No.22/2009 before the Civil Court, Dudu against

Shri Buddhi Prakash and Shri Nandkishor and in that civil suit the

dispute about this land of Khasra No.3695/3 measuring 3 biswa

was raised which has been dismissed.

7. As far as the alleged manipulation in revenue record

pertaining to Khasra No.3695 is concerned, it has been submitted

that the trace map of Khasra No.3695/3 with tarmim

(rectification) was issued by the Patwari without the order of

tarmim and therefore, the disciplinary action has been proposed

against the concerned Patwaris.

8. In that view of matter, the respondents have submitted that

the order dated 27.02.2017 has been complied with that too after

due application of mind and after going through entire relevant

record and as no encroachment over the land of Khasra No.3695/3

by the person Buddhi Prakash has been found over the land of 3

biswa of Khasra No.3695 which is actually recorded in the revenue

record in his name, therefore, the representations of petitioner

have been dismissed vide order dated 12.01.2018.

9. Heard counsels for both the parties and perused the entire

material on record.

10. It transpires that the land of Khasra No.3695/3, measuring 3

biswa was recorded in the name of Keshar Lal since 1979 and

presently the same is recorded in the name of Buddhi Prakash

Sharma. It also transpires that the land of Khasra No.3695 is

recorded in the revenue record as "gair mumkin rasta" and not the

pond's land. It appears that there is a private dispute between the

petitioner and one Buddhi Prakash Sharma regarding the

(6 of 6) [CCP-252/2018]

possession over this 3 biswa land which is part of Khasra No.3695

and separated as khasra No.3695/3.

11. The civil suit, preferred by petitioner's husband has also

been dismissed as alleged by respondents and not controverted by

the petitioner. There seems to be contentious dispute between the

private parties, in relation to piece of 3 biswa out of Khasra

No.3695 at village Phagi, Tehsil Phagi, District, Jaipur and such

dispute deserves to be adjudicated by way of separate and regular

proceedings before the revenue authorities. Such disputed issues

are not permissible to be agitated and to be adjudicated in the

proceedings of contempt petition.

12. In the opinion of this Court, the respondents cannot be held

guilty for non-compliance of the order dated 27.02.2017.

Accordingly, this contempt petition does not survive any further

and is accordingly dismissed. Notices are discharged.

(SUDESH BANSAL),J

SAURABH/114

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)