Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Lrs Of Kamlesh Gupta And Anr vs U. I. T. Bikaner on 29 November, 2023
Author: Kuldeep Mathur
Bench: Kuldeep Mathur
[2023:RJ-JD:40991]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Writ Contempt No. 162/2014
1. LRs of Kamlesh Gupta W/o Shri Chaman Lal:-
1/1. Chaman Lal S/o Shri Ram Swaroop Gupta.
1/2. Mamata D/o Shri Chaman Lal Gupta.
1/3. Vikas S/o Shri Chaman Lal Gupta.
1/4. Vandna Gupta D/o Shri Chaman Lal Gupta.
1/5. Rachna D/o Shri Chaman Lal Gupta.
1/6. Pooja Gupta D/o Shri Chaman Lal Gupta.
1/7. Rupesh S/o Shri Chaman Lal Gupta.
All resident of Suthar Khana, Adarsh Colony, Bikaner.
2. Subba Rao S/o Shri Chhabi Das, resident of Pawan Puri,
Near Rashtra Unati Vidhyalaya, Bikaner.
----Petitioners
Versus
Urban Improvement Trust, Bikaner through its Secretary Shri
Durgesh Bissa.
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr.Suresh Shrimali.
For Respondent(s) : Mr.Rajiv Purohit.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KULDEEP MATHUR
ORDER
29/11/2023
The present contempt petition has been filed by the
petitioners alleging willful and deliberate non-compliance of the
order dated 3.7.2013 passed by a coordinate Bench of this Court
in S.B.Civil Writ Petition No.527/2011 "U.I.T. Vs. Civil Judge &
Ors.".
The operative portion of the order dated 3.7.2013 is
reproduced hereinbelow for ready reference:
[2023:RJ-JD:40991] (2 of 4) [WCP-162/2014]
"4. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties,
this Court is of the opinion that no useful purpose will
be served by attachment of bank account and
furniture of the Secretary of the UIT, Bikaner for
execution of the decree for injunction of the year
1986. The decree holder not only approached the
executing court belatedly after about 17-18 years, but
in the meanwhile, even if it is assumed that certain
proceedings for regularisation were taken by them
and the UIT considered her case for regularisation of
plot, the fact remains that the lease-deed was
executed in favour of a third party, namely, one Subba
Rao on 26.10.2002 which cannot be now adversely
affected by any such execution. However, in view of
proceedings already undertaken between the parties,
it is considered appropriate that UIT, Bikaner may
even now consider the case of the petitioner for
regularisation of the plaintiff- decree holder,
objectively and sympathetically and allot an
alternative plot in the same colony or in the nearby
colony of the same measurement and on the same
terms as already entered into between the parties in
consequence of the decree passed in favour of the
respondent - plaintiff way back in the year 1986
particularly in view of the fact that some
regularisation proceedings were undertaken and the
money for such regularisation of plot in question was
deposited by the plaintiff Kamlesh Gupta way back in
the year 2002.
With the aforesaid observations, the present writ
petition of UIT, Bikaner, the judgment debtor, is
allowed and the impugned order dtd.27.11.2010 is set
aside. The UIT, Bikaner shall consider the case of the
respondent Smt.Kamlesh Gupta for allotment of
alternative plot and execute the lease-deed on the
same terms already settled and paid by her, within a
period of three months from today. No order as to
costs. A copy of this order be sent to the parties
concerned forthwith."
Learned counsel for the respondents at the outset submitted
that in compliance of the order dated 3.7.2013 passed by a
coordinate Bench of this Court, the competent authority of the
department by an order dated 19.5.2015 has allotted plot No.C-4,
measuring 34x69=2346 sq.ft. in Swarn Jayanti Housing Scheme of
U.I.T., Bikaner to the petitioners. Learned counsel prayed that
since an alternative plot has already been allotted to the
[2023:RJ-JD:40991] (3 of 4) [WCP-162/2014]
petitioners in compliance of the order under contempt, the present
contempt petition deserves to be dismissed and the notice issued
to the answering respondent deserves to be discharged.
Per contra, learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that
the compliance of the order dated 3.7.2013 passed by this Court
has not been made by the respondents in its true letter and spirit.
Learned counsel submitted that despite there being availability of
alternative plots of the same measurement i.e. 39x70=2730 sq.ft.
in the Adarsh Colony, Bikaner in which originally the allotment of
plot was made to the petitioners or in the nearby colonies of U.I.T.
Bikaner, the respondents have allotted a plot to the petitioners in
the colony situated about 12 kms. away from the colony in which
the original allotment of the plot was earlier made to the
petitioners.
Learned counsel for the petitioners however, was not in a
position to dispute the fact that plot No. C-4, measuring
34x69=2346 sq.ft. in Swarn Jayanti Housing Scheme of U.I.T.,
Bikaner has been allotted to the petitioners by the respondents
vide order dated 19.5.2015.
In view of the aforesaid factual background, the question
that arises before this Court is as to whether it is open for this
Court to review the correctness of the allotment order dated
19.5.2015 issued by the competent authority i.e. U.I.T. Bikaner in
making allotment of the above plot in favour of the petitioners.
This Court is of the firm opinion that once there is an
allotment order issued by the competent authority on the basis of
the directions issued by this Court vide order dated 3.7.2013, the
respondents - contemnors cannot be held guilty of committing
[2023:RJ-JD:40991] (4 of 4) [WCP-162/2014]
willful and deliberate non-compliance of the directions issued by
this Court. If the petitioners are not satisfied with the allotment of
the plot made in their favour by the respondents or if they think
that the allotment has not been made in absolute conformity with
the directions issued by this Court, then that would give rise to a
fresh cause of action leading them to avail the opportunity of
judicial review. But by no stretch of imagination, the same can be
construed to be a willful violation of the directions issued by the
Court vide order dated 3.7.2013. The correctness of the allotment
order dated 19.5.2015 cannot be considered on merits by this
Court while exercising its powers under The Contempt of Courts
Act, 1971.
The present contempt petition is accordingly dismissed.
Notices issued to the respondent are discharged.
No order as to costs.
(KULDEEP MATHUR),J
/tarun goyal/
Sr.No.59
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
