CHARAN SINGH SON OF SHRI MUKHTYAR SINGH v. STATE OF RAJASTHAN
CCP/378/2024 · 2025-03-06
Bhuwan Goyal, Manindra Mohan Shrivastava
Transfer Petitionbody2025
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 17420 (RAJ) · dailylaw.ai ]
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 17420 (RAJ) · dailylaw.ai ]
Judgment text
Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.
[2025:RJ-JP:10205-DB] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR D.B. Civil Contempt Petition No. 378/2024 Charan Singh Son Of Shri Mukhtyar Singh, Aged About 60 Years, Resident Of Nagla Kalyan, Milakhpur, Tehsil Uchchain, District Bharatpur (Raj.). ----Petitioner Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Principal Secretary, Revenue Department, Government Secretariat, Jaipur (Raj.).
2. Dinesh Kumar (I.a.s.), Principal Secretary, Revenue Department, Government Secretariat, Jaipur (Raj.).
3. Amit Yadav, District Collector, Bharatpur, District Bharatpur (Raj.).
4. Dinesh Yadav, Tehsildar Roopwas, District Bharatpur (Raj.). ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Karanpal Singh For Respondent(s) : Mr. GS Gill, AAG assisted by Mr. SP Singh Rajawat, Asstt. GC HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BHUWAN GOYAL Order 06/03/2025
1. The contempt petition has been filed alleging willful disobedience of the order dated 22.12.2023 passed by this Court on the ground that the Tehsildar has not passed proper and appropriate order on 15.05.2024. He submits that proper enquiry was not held and the persons against whom allegation of encroachment was made, were not even noticed.
[2025:RJ-JP:10205-DB] (2 of 2) [CCP-378/2024]
2. This Court vide order dated 22.12.2023 disposed of the petition directing Tehsildar to hold an enquiry under Section 91 of the Land Revenue Act, 1956 and pass appropriate order, as may be required under the law, after affording opportunity of hearing to the persons against whom the allegation of encroachment is made. The Tehsildar has passed an order on 15.05.2024.
3. The argument that the order is not proper and proper enquiry has not been made are all matters of merits. This Court had no occasion to deal with the matter on merits. If the order of Tehsildar is not acceptable to the petitioner, his remedy lies in taking other proceedings against order dated 15.05.2024 and not the contempt petition.
4. The contempt petition is, accordingly, dismissed.
(BHUWAN GOYAL),J (MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA),CJ KAMLESH KUMAR-RAHUL/17