Ghansi Son Of Late Shri Godu Gurjar vs Narenda Kumar Jain Son Of Shri ...
2023 Latest Caselaw 900 Raj/2

         HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
                     BENCH AT JAIPUR

             S.B. Civil Contempt Petition No. 918/2022

Ghansi Son Of Late Shri Godu Gurjar, Aged About 85 Years, R/o
Village Teelawal, Post Jagatpura, Tehsil Sanganer, District Jaipur
(Raj.)
                                                                    ----Petitioner
                                    Versus
1.       Narenda Kumar Jain Son Of Shri Ummedmal Jain, Aged
         About 61 Years, R/o 44/203, Rajat Path, Mansarovar,
         Jaipur (Raj.)
2.       Ravi Jain, Commissioner, Jaipur Development Authority,
         J.l.n. Marg, Jaipur (Rajasthan)
3.       Ujjwal Rathore, Secretory, Jaipur Development Authority,
         J.l.n. Marg, Jaipur (Rajasthan)
4.       Naresh Tanwer, Deputy Commissioner, Zone-9, Jaipur
         Development Authority, J.l.n. Marg, Jaipur (Rajasthan)
                                                                 ----Respondents

For Petitioner(s)          :    Mr. Anoop Pareek
For Respondent(s)          :    Mr. R.K. Agarwal, Sr. Adv. with
                                Mr. Yuvraj Samant
                                Mr. Ashutosh Bhatia
                                Mr. Pranav Pareek
                                Mr. Prateek Khandal

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA Order

Order Reserved on :: 18.1.2023 Order Pronounced on :: 27.01.2023

This civil contempt petition u/s 12 of the Contempt of Courts

Act, 1971 has been filed for disobeying the directions issued by

this court vide order dt.22.3.2022 passed in S.B. Civil First Appeal

No.40/2021.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner

had filed an appeal challenging the order of the trial court dt.

30.1.2018. In the said appeal after hearing the parties, this court

(2 of 3) [CCP-918/2022]

directed the parties to maintain status quo as to alienation and

possession in relation to the property in question as it exists

today. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that respondents

have disobeyed the order passed by this court and started to

convert the land use. Respondents No.2 to 4 who were not party

in the appeal had issued the advertisement in news paper Dainik

Bhaskar. Learned counsel for the petitioner also submits that as

per the stay order, no proceedings should be done regarding

disputed land and status quo was required to be maintained.

Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that petitioner

has filed the photographs of the disputed land in which

construction was going on. So, respondents be punished

intentionally for disobeying of the court order dt.22.3.2022.

Learned counsel for the respondent No.1 has opposed the

arguments advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner and

submitted that as per the stay order, they have not committed any

disobedience. Learned counsel for the respondent No.1 submits

that proceedings were initiated for conversion of land use. The

said proceedings does not come under the purview of the

contempt because respondent No.1 has not alienated and handed

over the possession of the disputed land to other persons. Learned

counsel for the respondent No.1 submits that construction was

going on adjoining land, in which no stay order was passed. So,

this contempt petition be dismissed.

Learned counsel for the respondent No.1 has relied upon the

judgment of Punjab and Haryana High Court in the case of

Rachhpal Singh vs. Gurdarshan Singh reported in AIR 1985 Punjab

and Haryana 299.

(3 of 3) [CCP-918/2022]

Learned counsel for the respondents No.2 to 4 submits that

respondents have not violated the interim order passed by this

court. As soon as, respondents got information regarding status

quo of the disputed land, they have stopped the conversion

proceedings. So, contempt petition be dismissed.

Learned counsel for the respondents No.2 to 4 has relied

upon the judgment of this court in the case of B.S.N.Ltd. & anr.

vs. C.K. Mathew & ors. S.B. Civil Contempt Petition No.4/2013

decided on 14.5.2013.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the

material available on record.

This court while allowing the stay application filed by the

petitioner and directed the parties to maintain status quo as to

alienation and possession in relation to the property in question as

it exists today. Respondent No.1 had initiated proceedings

regarding change of land use of the disputed property. He has not

alienated the disputed property to anyone and as per contention

of the respondent No.1 construction was going on adjoining land

and not on the disputed land. So, in my considered opinion, no

contempt is made out. So, the contempt petition being devoid of

merits is liable to be dismissed which stands dismissed

accordingly.

Notices stand discharged.

(NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA),J

Brijesh 77.

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)