[2026:RJ-JP:11246-DB] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR D.B. Civil Contempt Petition No. 916/2025 In D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 11787/2021 Jitendra Singh Shekhawat S/o Shri Laxman Singh, aged about 40 Years, R/o Ward No. 17 Village Sultana, Tehsil Chirawa, District Jhunjhunu ----Petitioner Versus 1. Sudhansh Pant, Principal Secretary, Revenue Department, Government Of Rajasthan Secretariat, Jaipur 2. Arun Garg, District Collector Jhunjhunu, District Jhunjhunu 3. Naresh Soni, Sub Divisional Officer Chirawa, District Jhunjhunu 4. Ramkuwar Poonia, Tehsildar Chirawa, Tehsil Chirawa, District Jhunjhunu 5. State Of Rajasthan, Through Principal Secretary Revenue Department, Secretariat, Jaipur (Rajasthan) ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Arun Singh Shekhawat For Respondent(s) : Mr. G.S. Gill AAG Ms. Shikha Sharma HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDESH BANSAL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHUTOSH KUMAR Order 17/03/2026 1. Heard counsel for both the parties and perused the record including the reply filed by respondents to the contempt petition. 2. The issue is in respect of non-removal of encroachment from the land of Khasra No.1090 situated at Village Sultana, Tehsil Chirawa, District Jhunjhunu, measuring 14.65 hectares recorded as Gair Mumkin Johad in the revenue record. [2026:RJ-JP:11246-DB] (2 of 4) [CCP-916/2025] 3. It appears that petitioner filed a D.B. Civil Writ Petition No.11787/2021, raising a common grievance of making an encroachment over the Johad land and inaction of State Authorities for non-removal of the same, despite filing a representation. The petition was decided vide order dated 15.11.2021, directing the Collector to take appropriate decision as per judgment delivered in case of Jagdish Prasad Meena and Ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan and Ors. (D.B. Civil Writ Petition (PIL) No. 10819/2018). 4. In the reply to the contempt petition, respondents have submitted that in furtherance to the order dated 15.11.2021, the issue of encroachment over the Johad land was taken up before the Public Land Protection Cell (PLPC) in its meeting dated 24.12.2021 and it was decided to keep the land of Johad encroachment free. The copy of decision of PLPC has been placed on record. 5. It has further been stated in the reply that thereafter, Tehsildar initiated proceedings under Section 91 of the Land Revenue Act, 1956 and after giving opportunity of hearing to the encroachers, passed orders for removal of encroachment. In further compliance, the encroachment of about 28 encroachers, enlisted in para No.5 of the reply, has been removed barring the pukka construction of old residential houses and a Gaushala. To show removal of encroachments, few snaps/photographs have also been placed on record. 6. Counsel for the writ petitioner contends that entire encroachment has not been removed. [2026:RJ-JP:11246-DB] (3 of 4) [CCP-916/2025] 7. Having considered the factual matrix of the case, we find that petitioner has not given any details of the encroachments over the land of Johad. Petitioner made a general allegation encroachment has been made but no specification of the age, area and nature of encroachment have been given out. According to respondents, as stated by them in the reply to the contempt petition, the encroachment from the Johad land has been removed. 8. In respect of pukka residential houses and Gaushala, no details are available on record as to show since when such encroachment/construction is available on site. As per respondents, residential houses and Gaushala is old construction and entire construction is not an encroachment, moreover, no alternative place of rehabilitation has been made available. 9. In this contempt petition, factual dispute about the age, area and nature of encroachment exists. 10. In the contempt jurisdiction, no roving enquiry, in respect of the factual disputes, can be adjudicated afresh. If the orders passed by the Tehsildar for removal of encroachments have not been executed in letter and spirit, petitioner has legal remedy, envisaged under Section 91 of the Act of 1956, itself. 11. As far as jurisdiction of civil contempt is concerned, no disobedience of the final order dated 15.11.2021 has been found by this Court, on the part of respondents, more so, we do not find that the respondents authorities exposed any disregard/disrespect to the orders of this Court. It is trite law that a deliberate and willful non-compliance of the Court’s order is an essential part to establish a civil contempt and in the guise of contempt petition, [2026:RJ-JP:11246-DB] (4 of 4) [CCP-916/2025] petitioner may not invoke the jurisdiction for execution of order, for which separate remedy lies in law. 12. In view of above, the proceedings of contempt petition are hereby closed and notices of contempt stand discharged. (ASHUTOSH KUMAR),J (SUDESH BANSAL),J pcg/10