[2026:RJ-JP:224-DB] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR D.B. Civil Contempt Petition No. 54/2022 Ram Narayan Meena S/o Shri Bhanwar Lal Meena, Aged About 49 Years, Resident Of Ward No. 8, Purana Bazar, Diggi, Tehsil Malpura, Distt. Tonk(Raj.) Mobile No. 8306699552 Pan No. Apypno0952K. ----Petitioner Versus 1. Shri Niranjan Arya, Chief Secretary, Government Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur. 2. Shri Anand Kumar, Principal Secreary Revenue Department, Government Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur. 3. Ms Chinmayi Gopal District Collector, Tonk 4. Suresh Choudhary Secretary/village Development Officer, Gram Panchayat Diggi, Tehsil Malpura, District Tonk, 5. The State Of Rajasthan Through The Chief Secretary, Government Secretariat, Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur (Rajasthan) ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Laxmi Kant Malpura For Respondent(s) : Mr. G. S. Gill, AAG with Mr. Manoj Kumar HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDESH BANSAL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP TANEJA Order 06/01/2026 BY THE COURT : (Per Hon’ble S andeep Taneja, J. ) 1. The petitioner has filed the instant Civil Contempt Petition alleging non compliance of the order dated 07.09.2021 passed in D.B. Civil Writ Petition (PIL) No.9648/2021. For ready reference, the operative portion of the order dated 07.09.2021 reads as under: - “In view of the above order, the petitioner is directed to approach Respondent No.3 by filing a detailed [2026:RJ-JP:224-DB] (2 of 6) [CCP-54/2022] representation along with copy of this order and the grievances of the petitioner shall be examined by Respondent No.3 and needful be done within a period of three months from the date of filing of the representation”. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in pursuance of the aforesaid order, the petitioner submitted a representation dated 10.09.2021 to the District Collector, Tonk, seeking removal of encroachments from the Charagah land situated in Village/Gram Panchayat Diggi, Tehsil Malpura, District Tonk. However, despite due service of notices, the respondent- authorities failed to remove the encroachments from the land in question. Petitioner has made a specific allegation that husband and brother-in-law of District Representative of Zila Parishad namely Geeta Meena have also made encroachments on some part of the land in question. 3. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents submits that in compliance with the order dated 07.09.2021, the District Collector, Tonk, vide letter dated 20.09.2021, issued directions to the Sub-Divisional Officer, Malpura, to remove the encroachments from the land in question. In pursuance thereof, the Nayab Tehsildar, Diggi, was appointed as Mauka Commissioner. The Nayab Tehsildar, Diggi, initiated the process for removal of encroachments on 25.01.2022 and the encroachments were removed during the period from 25.01.2022 to 04.02.2022. 3.1 Learned counsel for the respondents further submits that insofar as the standing crop on the land in question is concerned, the same was forfeited in accordance with law and was subsequently put to auction. [2026:RJ-JP:224-DB] (3 of 6) [CCP-54/2022] 3.2 Learned counsel also submits that the Naib Tehsildar, Diggi, issued notices under Section 91 of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) to all the encroachers and after following the due process under law 50 times penalty was recovered from them. 3.3 Learned Counsel further submitted that one of the alleged encroacher filed a Civil Miscellaneous Application No.28/2022 in D.B. Civil Writ Petition (PIL) No.9648/2021 seeking recall/ modification /clarification of the order dated 07.09.2021 stating that he was not an encroacher and he was in valid possession under the Authority of law on the land since more than two decades. The said application was disposed of by this Court vide order dated 08.04.2022 with the direction to the respondent- authorities to hear everyone who is alleged to be encroacher of the land-in-dispute, affording him an opportunity of hearing, considering the material on record and then take appropriate decision in accordance with law. Accordingly the order dated 07.09.2021 was modified. 3.4 Learned counsel for the respondents drew attention of the court towards affidavit and additional affidavit to point out that Patwar site inspection of the land in question was carried out on 08.09.2022 and was found that there was no encroachment of any kind by way of construction or crops. However, it was found that 26 persons ploughed some part of the land against whom report was submitted under Section 91 of the Act and 25 encroachers out of aforesaid 26 encroachers were evicted on 27.09.2022. [2026:RJ-JP:224-DB] (4 of 6) [CCP-54/2022] 3.5 Learned counsel also submits that with regard to Khasra No.2321/1 situated in Gram Panchayat Diggi, a cowshed is being operated in 5 Bigha area and the proposal for allotment of land is pending with the concerned authorities for approval. It was also brought to the notice of the Court that several temporary structures such as shed, space for feeding cows and water etc. have been removed and only two rooms i.e. permanent construction which are being used for storing fodder for the cows have not been removed. However, in view of the order dated 08.04.2022 notices under Section 91 of the Act have been issued. 3.6 It is also submitted that subsequent to the above encroachment removal drive, 13 (thirteen) new encroachments were reported on the concerned land and accordingly, proceedings have been initiated against the encroachers by registering the case under Section 91 of the Act. 3.7 Learned counsel for the respondents submits that the encroachments made by relatives of the District Representative of Zila Parishad have been removed by the respondents. 3.8 Lastly, learned counsel for the respondents submits that order passed by this Court has been duly complied with. 4. Heard learned counsel for both the parties and perused the material available on record. 5. The expression ‘civil contempt’ as defined under Section 2(b) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, reads as under: - [2026:RJ-JP:224-DB] (5 of 6) [CCP-54/2022] 2(b)“civil contempt” means wilful disobedience to any judgment, decree, direction, order, writ or other process of a court or wilful breach of an undertaking given to a court; 6. A bare perusal of the above definition reveals that in order to constitute a civil contempt, there must be wilful disobedience of any order or judgment of the Court. 7. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Kapildeo Prasad Sah and Ors Vs. State of Bihar & Ors reported in 1999 (7) SCC 569 has held that power to punish for contempt is to be resorted to when there is clear violation of the court’s order. Since notice of contempt and punishment for contempt is of far-reacing consequence, these powers should be invoked only when a clear case of wilful disobedience of the court’s order has been made out. It was further held that a petitioner who complains breach of the court’s order must allege deliberate or contumacious disobedience of the court’s order. 8. In the instant case, in compliance of the order dated 07.09.2021, the District Collector, Tonk issued appropriate instructions to the SDO, Malpura, District Tonk to remove encroachments and the Naib Tehsildar, Diggi was appointed as Mauka Commissioner who undertook the eviction proceedings for removal of the encroachments from 25.01.2022 to 04.02.2022. Crops standing on the land in question have been forfeited and subsequently auctioned. Proceedings under Section 91 of the Act were drawn and the penalty upto 50 times were recovered from the encroachers. All the encroachments have been removed [2026:RJ-JP:224-DB] (6 of 6) [CCP-54/2022] except two pucca constructions which have been constructed for storing fodder for the cows. 9. Learned counsel for the petitioner has not been able to refute the facts narrated in affidavit/additional affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents. 10. In view of the above, this court is of the considered opinion that the order dated 07.09.2021 has been substantially complied with by the respondent-authorities and no case of disobedience much less wilfil disobedience is made out against the respondents. 11. Accordingly, the instant Contempt Petition is dismissed. Contempt notices issued to the respondents are discharged. (SANDEEP TANEJA),J (SUDESH BANSAL),J 8/-Dharmendra Rakhecha