[2026:RJ-JP:5500-DB] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR D.B. Civil Contempt Petition No. 409/2024 Gopal Singh Son Of Shri Girdhari Singh, Aged About 30 Years, Resident Of Gram Karanga Chhota, Tehsil Fatehpur District Sikar, Rajasthan. ----Petitioner Versus 1. Mr. Sudhansh Pant, The Chief Secretary To The Government Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur. 2. Mr. Qummer U1 Zaman Choudhary, The District Collector, Sikar, Rajasthan. 3. Mr. Hitesh Choudhary, Tehsildar, Fatehpur Shekhawati, Sikar, Rajasthan. 4. The State Of Rajashtan, Through Its Chief Secretary, Secretariat, Jaipur, Rajasthan. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Sumit Kumar Upadhyay For Respondent(s) : Mr. S.P. Singh, Mr. Dev Kumar, Mr. Aditya Singh for Mr. G.S. Gill, AAG HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDESH BANSAL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR UPMAN Order 05/02/2026 1. Heard learned counsel for both parties and perused the record. 2. In this contempt petition, disobedience of the judgment/order dated 19.01.2024 passed in D.B. Civil Writ (PIL) Petition No. 19678/2023 has been alleged, stating inter alia, that eviction order dated 15.07.2021 passed by the Naib Tehsildar, has not been complied with and the encroachment from pasture land [2026:RJ-JP:5500-DB] (2 of 3) [CCP-409/2024] over the Khasra No. 272 measuring 1.9 hectare, has not been removed. 3. In response to the contempt petition, reply as well as Additional Affidavit have been filed by and on behalf of respondent, pointing out that survey of Khasra No. 272 has been made and on few of the portion, pakka residential construction of few persons since long is present; electricity connections and water connections have also been released. It has been pointed out that a Civil Suit No. 38/2024 titled as Umed Singh & Ors. Vs. Tehsildar, Fatehpur, has been filed, which is pending. It has further been pointed out that the order dated 19.01.2024 is not absolute and serious efforts are being made to remove the encroachment, hence, at this stage, respondents may not be held guilty for disobedience of the order dated 19.01.2024. 4. Having perused the judgment/ order dated 19.01.2024, we find that this Court while disposing of the writ petition, passed following order:- “This petition, at this stage, is disposed off with a direction to Tehsildar Fatehpur Shekhawati, District Sikar to examine the records of the case. If the order of eviction passed by Naib Tehsildar on 15.07.2021 has not been challenged and there is no interim order passed in any appeal, revision or any writ petition filed by the persons against whom the order of eviction has been passed, the encroachment shall be removed forthwith within a period of thirty days from the date of the receipt of the copy of this order” 5. Taking into consideration that pakka construction of houses are standing over the land in question and a civil suit is also pending, it may not be said that respondents are not serious to follow the directions of the High Court issued vide order dated 19.01.2024. All possible efforts are being made by respondents. [2026:RJ-JP:5500-DB] (3 of 3) [CCP-409/2024] 6. It is an established principle of law that to hold a person guilty of civil contempt, willful disobedience is an indispensable requirement. The Hon’ble Supreme Court, after sailing through plethora of judgments recently in case of Balwantbhai Somabhai Bhandari v. Hiralal Somabhai Contractor [(2023)17 SCC 545], opined that the expression or word “Willful” means act or omission, which is done voluntarily or intentionally and with the specific intent to do something which the law forbids or with the specific intent to fail to do something the law requires to be done, that is to say that bad purpose either to disobey or to disregard the law, which signifies deliberate action done with evil intent or with a bad motive or purpose. 7. After taking into consideration the nature of directions and the factual aspect, as disclosed by the respondents, at this stage, we do not deem it just and proper to hold the respondent guilty for disobedience of the order dated 19.01.2024, much less deliberate or intentional. Even otherwise, Section 91 of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, 1956, is a complete code wherein the procedure of execution of eviction order is also envisaged. We are mindful that the contempt jurisdiction may not be invoked and exercised for execution of the orders passed under Section 91 of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act. 8. As a result, the contempt petition is hereby dismissed. 9. Notices stand discharge. 10. All pending application(s), if any, stand disposed of. (ANIL KUMAR UPMAN),J (SUDESH BANSAL),J NITIN/16