Girdhari Lal vs Dr. Sita Sharma And Ors
2022 Latest Caselaw 9532 Raj

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Writ Contempt No. 426/2015

Mani Ram

----Petitioner Versus Dr. Sita Sharma And Ors

----Respondent Connected With S.B. Writ Contempt No. 425/2015 Girdhari Lal

----Petitioner Versus Dr. Sita Sharma And Ors

----Respondent

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. AK Singh For Respondent(s) : Mr. AR Godara Mr. GR Goyal Mr. Dinesh Kumar Joshi

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAY BISHNOI

Judgment / Order

21/07/2022

These contempt petitions have been filed by the petitioners

alleging that the respondents have illegally sanctioned mutation in

favour of the legal heirs of one Shera Ram vide order dated

14.11.2014 in respect of land situated in Village Mithadiya, Tehsil

Loonkarnsar, District Bikaner.

Learned counsel for the petitioners has argued that mutation

Nos. 72 and 74 were sanctioned in favour of the petitioners in the

year 1978 by the Tehsildar concerned on the basis of a gift deed

executed in their favour by the land holder. The said mutation

[WCP-426/2015]

proceedings were challenged before the Sub Divisional

Commissioner concerned, who has dismissed the said challenge.

Against the order of the concerned Sub Divisional Commissioner,

the aggrieved persons have filed appeals before the Divisional

Commissioner, Bikaner, which came to be allowed and the

mutation sanctioned in favour of the petitioners was ordered to be

cancelled.

Being aggrieved with the order passed by the Divisional

Commissioner, Bikaner, the petitioners have filed revision

petitions, however, the same also came to be dismissed by the

Board of Revenue, Ajmer.

Being aggrieved with the same, the petitioners have

preferred writ petition Nos.203/1997 & 160/1997 before this Court

and the learned Single Judge has disposed of the said writ

petitions vide order dated 12.02.1997. The petitioners, thereafter,

have preferred Special Leave Petitions, which were withdrawn by

them with liberty to file review petitions. The review petitions filed

by the petitioners came to be disposed of by this Court vide order

dated 22.11.2007, whereby this Court has deleted some portion of

the order dated 12.02.1997 and has inserted some words in the

aforesaid order.

Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the

nature of the order dated 12.02.1997 passed by the learned

Single Judge and the order dated 20.02.2007 passed in the review

petitions was clearly reversed by the orders passed by the

Divisional Commissioner as well as Board of Revenue, which

resulted in natural consequence that the mutations entries in

favour of the petitioners sanctioned way back in the year 1978 are

to be restored. It is alleged that the respondents revenue

[WCP-426/2015]

authorities have acted contrarily and ultimately sanctioned

mutation in favour of the heirs of the original land holder in the

year 2014 and, as such, the respondents have willfully disobeyed

the order passed by this Court. Learned counsel for the petitioners

has, therefore, argued that these contempt petitions may be

allowed and the concerned respondent authorities may be

punished suitably for contempt of this Court.

Reply to the contempt petitions have been filed on behalf of

the respondents, wherein it is averred that they have highest

esteem and there have never been any intentions to disregard the

orders passed by this Court. It is also submitted that there is no

illegality in sanctioning mutation in the name of the heirs of the

original khatedar because the mutation entries sanctioned in

favour of the petitioners were already set aside by the Divisional

Commissioner and the Board of Revenue and those orders were

not interfered with by this Court in writ petitions as well as in the

review petitions. It is also submitted that against the order dated

05.11.2014 sanctioning mutation, the petitioners have already

filed appeal before the competent authority and the same is

pending consideration. Learned counsel for the respondents have,

therefore, prayed that the contempt petitions may be dismissed

and the notices issued be discharged.

Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the

material available on record.

It is not in dispute that the mutation sanctioned in favour of

the petitioners in the year 1978 i.e. mutation Nos.72 and 74 was

set aside by the orders passed by the Divisional Commissioner

and the Board of Revenue and those orders have not been

specifically reversed by this Court in writ petitions and the review

[WCP-426/2015]

petitions preferred by the petitioners. Since, the petitioners have

already challenged the order of sanctioning mutation by way of an

appeal and the same is pending consideration, I am of the view

that the petitioners have failed to make out case of deliberate

disobedience on the part of the respondents.

Hence, there is no force in these contempt petitions which

are dismissed as such.

Notices are discharged.

VIJAY BISHNOI),J 11-12 mohit/-

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)