Uttarakhand High Court
Unknown vs State And Ors Had Already on 2 March, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND
AT NAINITAL
ON THE 2ND DAY OF MARCH, 2021
BEFORE:
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR TIWARI
CONTEMPT PETITION No. 377 of 2016
BETWEEN:
Jagjivan Ram. ....Petitioner
(By Tapan Singh, Advocate)
AND:
Shri Harbansh Singh Chug
and another. ...Respondents
(Mr. J.S. Bisht, Standing Counsel for the State of
Uttarakhand)
JUDGMENT
Petitioner has alleged willful disobedience of
the order dated 07.11.2016 passed by Division Bench
of this Court in WPPIL No. 151 of 2016. By the said
order, District Magistrate, Haridwar was directed to
evict the persons, who have occupied the land of the
pond, within a period of four weeks from the date of
order.
2. A response affidavit has been filed by Mr. C.
Ravishankar, Collector/District Deputy Director of
Consolidation, Haridwar. Paragraph no. 3 of the said
response affidavit is reproduced below:
"That the order dated 7.11.2016
passed by the Hon'ble Court in Writ
Petition PIL no. 151/2016 Jagjivan
Ram Vs State and ors had already
been complied.
That in compliance to the Hon'ble
Court's order dated 7.11.2016 a joint
team of the Consolidation department
and Revenue department did the
measurement work from 6.12.2016 to
13.12.2016. At that time in a part of
Khasra No. 740 in 0.16 Hectare
eviction proceedings under section
122B of U.P. Zamidari Abolition & Land
Reform Act were pending against the
Shaukat S/o Meer Hasan due to illegal
possession. Copy of proceedings under
122 B of U.P. Zamidari Abolition &
Land Reform Act against the petitioner
herewith as Annexure No. RA 1.
That except for the part for which
proceeding under the U.P. Zamidari
Abolition & Land Reform Act were
pending, rest of the land was made
free from encroachment and was
handed over to the Gram Pradhan on
13.12.2016. In this regard the copy of
Supurdginama (handing over of
possession) is annexed herewith as
Annexure No. RA 2. The measurement
were taken in presence of the Gram
Pradhan and other villagers. Copy of
the measurement is annexed herewith
as Annexure No. RA 3.
That also the petitioner had earlier
filed contempt petitioner and the then
District Magistrate Mr. Harbansh Singh
Chugh has already filed his response
on 20.2.2017. Copy of the response
dated 20.2.2017 is annexed herewith
as Annexure No. RA 4. That while the
matter with regard to the
encroachment in land measuring 0.16
hectare in Khasra No. 740 was
pending in the Court of Tehsildar,
Roorkee being case no. 5 (Gram
Sabha Vs Shaukat) under section 122
B the person (Shaukat S/o Meer
Hasan) himself removed his
possession. In this regard the Revenue
Inspector, Roorkee has also submitted
its comments alongwith Photographs
on 20.2.2020 before the Court of
Tehsildar Roorkee and the aforesaid
case is also been disposed of
accordingly on 4.3.2020. Copy of the
order dated 4.3.2020 is annexed
herewith as Annexure No. RA 5.
That the respondent no. 2 has
received notice on 19.12.2020 and
thereafter report of spot inspection
was called from the Tehsildar Roorkee.
Tehsildar Roorkee on 23.12.2020
informed that the encroachment from
Johad land had already been removed
some bricks, etc were temporarily
placed which were also removed and
the possession has been taken. In
Khasra No. 740 temporarily toilet was
constructed which has been removed
and in some part wheat was grown
which has also been removed and at
present there is no encroachment in
land in question. Copy of the letter
dated 23.12.2020 is annexed herewith
as Annexure No. RA 6. That the
orders passed by the Hon'ble Court
have been fully complied with."
3. In view of categorical statement made by
Collector, Haridwar in his response affidavit, that all
the encroachment from the pond have been removed,
nothing survives in the Contempt Petition.
4. Accordingly, the Contempt Petition is
closed.
5. Contempt notices issued to the respondents
are hereby discharged.
6. However, petitioner shall be at liberty to
seek recall of this order, if he proves to the
satisfaction of this Court that the averments made in
paragraph no. 3 of the response affidavit are not
correct.
(MANOJ KUMAR TIWARI, J.)
Arpan
