[2026:RJ-JP:22378-DB] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR D.B. Civil Contempt Petition No. 915/2025 In D.B. Civil Writ Petition (PIL) No.8321/2023 Mahaveer Singh S/o Late Shri Maharaj Singh, Aged About 99 Years, R/o Village Khyali, Tehsil Malsisar, District Jhunjhunu (Rajasthan). ----Petitioner Versus 1. Sudhansh Pant, Principal Secretary, State Of Rajasthan, Govt. Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur. 2. Arun Garg, District Collector, Jhunjhunu, District Jhunjhunu. 3. Ajay Kumar Arya, Additional District Collector And Officer- In-Charge Vigilance Cell Collectorate, Jhunjhunu, District Jhunjhunu. 4. Pankaj Sharma, Sub Divisional Officer Malsisar, District Jhunjhunu. 5. Imran Khan, Tehsildar, Malsisar, District Jhunjhunu. 6. State Of Rajasthan, Through Principal Secretary Revenue Department, Secretariat, Jaipur (Rajasthan). ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Arun Singh Shekhawat For Respondent(s) : Ms. Shikha Sharma, AAAG with Mr. Aditya Singh for Mr. G.S. Gill, AAG HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MAHENDAR KUMAR GOYAL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR UPMAN Order 26/05/2026 1. This contempt petition is filed alleging deliberate violation of the direction dated 02.06.2023 issued by this Court in D.B. Civil Writ Petition (PIL) No.8321/2023 : Mahaveer Singh vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. whereby, the respondents were required to decide the representation submitted by the petitioner in the light of judgment of this Court in the case of Jagdish Prashad Meena & Ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors., D.B. [2026:RJ-JP:22378-DB] (2 of 2) [CCP-915/2025] Civil Writ Petition (PIL) No. 10819/2018 vide order dated 30.01.2019. It was further directed that in the inquiry for removal of the encroachment, the alleged encroachers shall be afforded an opportunity of hearing. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondents have failed to ensure compliance of the aforesaid direction and are not taking any effective steps for removal of the encroachment. He, therefore, prays that they may be punished suitably and be further directed to purge the contempt. 3. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents, inviting attention of this Court towards the documents appended with the memo of reply filed by them, would submit that pursuant to directions of this Court, encroachments were earmarked and proceedings under Section 91 of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, 1956 (for brevity, 'Act of 1956') have been initiated against them. She, therefore, prays for dismissal of the contempt petition. 4. Heard and considered. 5. The perusal of the documents appended with the reply reflects that after identifying the encroachments pursuant to representation filed by petitioner, the respondents have already initiated proceedings under Section 91 of the Act of 1956 against the encroachers. In view thereof, we do not find any willful disobedience of the directions issued by this Court vide order dated 02.06.2023. 6. Resultantly, this contempt petition is dismissed. (ANIL KUMAR UPMAN),J (MAHENDAR KUMAR GOYAL),J CHARU SONI/89