[2026:RJ-JP:4136-DB] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR D.B. Civil Contempt Petition No. 322/2023 In D.B. Civil Writ (PIL) Petition No.13667/2022 Om Prakash Yadav S/o Shri Sunder Lal Yadav, Aged About 61 Years, R/o 7 Hardev Vihar Behind Military Hospital Alwar. ----Petitioner Versus 1. Dr. Artika Shukla, District Collector Alwar, Chairman, Public Land Protection Cell, Alwar. 2. Shri Madhav Bharadwaj, Sub Divisional Officer Alwar Division District Alwar, 3. Shri Sohan Ram Choudhary, Settlement Officer Alwar 4. Smt. Rashmi Sharma, Tehsildar (Land Record)Tehsil Alwar District Alwar. 5. State Of Rajasthan through the Chief Secretary To The Government Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur(Rajasthan). ----Respondents- Contemnors For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Rakesh Kumar Sharma For Respondent(s) : Mr. Manoj Kumar for Mr. G. S. Gill, AAG HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDESH BANSAL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP TANEJA Order 29/01/2026 1. Instant Civil Contempt Petition has been filed alleging disobedience of the order dated 10.10.2022, passed in D.B. Civil Writ (PIL) Petition No. 13667/2022, whereby and whereunder for removal of encroachment from the public way situated on the government land comprising khasra Nos. 219, 222, 292, 294, 297 and 302 connecting two villages Dhawala and Alapur, petitioner was granted liberty to make a representation before the PLPC and [2026:RJ-JP:4136-DB] (2 of 3) [CCP-322/2023] respondents were directed to decide the same in the light of judgment dated 30.01.2019, passed by Division Bench of this Court in case of Jagdish Prashad Meena & Ors. V. State of Rajasthan & Ors.: D.B. Civil Writ Petition (PIL) No. 10819/2018. 2. In response to the contempt petition, the respondents have placed on record the report dated 24.06.2024 (Annexure CR-1) and pointed out that the PLPC noticed the encroachment over the land of ‘Gair Mumkin Rasta’ on khasra Nos. 219, 222, 292, 294, 297 and 302 and then, have removed the encroachment and made the public way open for access, free from encroachment. 3. Counsel for petitioner, although in rejoinder, disputes the factum of compliance and contends that compliance in letter and spirit has not been made, because few encroachments on the public way is still existing but petitioner has not been able to disclose the true nature of encroachment nor disclosed area and measurement of the public way, from which encroachment has not been removed. 4. In our opinion, evasive denial of the compliance report dated 24.06.2024 may not be treated as suffice to hold the respondents guilty for disobedience of order dated 10.10.2022, more so when no details of alleged existing encroachment on the public way have been given. Few photographs produced by petitioner do not show any pacca encroachment on the way and only some bushes are visible. 5. It is trite law that the jurisdiction of Civil Contempt Petition may not be invoked for execution of the orders for ensuring [2026:RJ-JP:4136-DB] (3 of 3) [CCP-322/2023] removal of encroachment from the government land since the scheme of execution for such orders is envisaged under Section 91 of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act. 6. In the case at hand, in furtherance to the order dated 10.10.2022, PLPC found encroachment on the public way, which has been stated to be removed, hence, it may not be concluded that the order dated 10.10.2022 has been disobeyed. Apparently, we do not find any deliberate or willful disobedience of the order dated 10.10.2022 on the part of respondents, which is an indispensable element to hold any person guilty of civil contempt. 7. As a result, the civil contempt petition is hereby dismissed and notices of contempt stand discharged. (SANDEEP TANEJA),J (SUDESH BANSAL),J TN-SkS/9