1 1 S.B. CIVIL WRIT CONTEMPT PETITION NO.233/2006. Bagdawat Vs. Inder Singh Jat .... 2 S.B. CIVIL WRIT CONTEMPT PETITION NO.234/2006. Sher Singh Vs. Inder Singh Jat .... 3 S.B. CIVIL WRIT CONTEMPT PETITION NO.235/2006. Suresh Kumar Vs. Inder Singh Jat .... 4 S.B. CIVIL WRIT CONTEMPT PETITION NO.236/2006. Daya Ram & Anr. Vs. Inder Singh Jat .... 5 S.B. CIVIL WRIT CONTEMPT PETITION NO.237/2006. Ran Singh Vs. Inder Singh Jat ..... Date of Order :: 3rd July 2008. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH MAHESHWARI Mr. J.L. Purohit, for the petitioners. Mr. Hemant Choudhary, for the non-petitioner. ..... BY THE COURT: These five contempt petitions involving similar facts and akin issues have been heard together and are taken up for disposal by this common order. In all these contempt petitions, notices have been issued to the then Tehsildar (Revenue), Bhadra to show cause as to why contempt proceedings be not initiated against him and the said Tehsildar has submitted replies to the show cause notices; and in one of the matters (Contempt Petition No. 235/2006), the petitioner has filed a rejoinder to the reply so submitted by the non-petitioner. 2 Having heard learned counsel for the petitioners and having gone through the entire material placed on record, this Court is clearly of opinion that no case is made out for initiating contempt proceedings against the non-petitioner. The substance of the matter is that the petitioners herein were allotted individual pieces of land for agricultural purposes on 26.11.2001 and 10.01.2002. The allotments so made were challenged and were set aside by the Revenue Appellate Authority by a common order dated 15.11.2002 (Annex. 3 in the respective writ petitions). The appeals taken by the respective petitioners before the Board of Revenue were rejected by the common order dated 09.12.2003 (Annex.4 in the respective writ petitions). Essentially it was found that the land in question was a “Johad Payatan Land” being put to public use with collection of rain-water; and it was found that the allotment was made contrary to the Rules and without proper constitution of the Advisory Committee and only on the basis of an application made by the respective petitioners. Against the order dated 09.12.2003 as passed by the Board of Revenue, the respective petitioners have filed the writ petitions to this Court wherein show cause notices were issued on 04.03.2004 without passing of any interim order at that stage. In the writ petitions, replies were filed on behalf of the 3 respondents on 16/17.05.2005; and thereafter, this Court heard the parties on 11.05.2006 and, while admitting the writ petitions, the parties were directed to maintain status quo as existing on that date with regard to the land in dispute. This Court passed the following order on 11.05.2006 :- “Admit. No need to issue notice afresh as parties are represented by their counsel. The parties are directed to main status quo as existing today with regard to land in dispute.” Thereafter, the petitioners were served with individual notices by the Tehsildar under Section 91 of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, 1956 alleging trespass on the land in question in the year 2006-07 and were called upon to show cause as to why requisite proceedings be not adopted. The petitioners filed replies to such notices stating that the land was allotted to them in “Prashashan Gaon Ke Sang Campaign – 2001-02”; and that there was a stay order operating as passed by the High Court regarding the land in question and, therefore, the proceedings were required to be dropped. The learned Tehsildar considered the record and so also the reply filed by the petitioners in each case and noticed further the fact that the land in question was directed to be taken over in possession under the order issued by the then Tehsildar, 4 Bhadra on 04.02.2003; that since then, the land had continued to be used as “Johad Payatan” and for public purposes; and that only in the month of July 2006, the petitioners trespassed over and cultivated the land. The Tehsildar pointed out that when status quo orders were passed by this Court on 11.05.2006, the land in question was in possession of the Government and rather the petitioners had violated the orders so passed by the Court by entering into the possession of the land. The Tehsildar declared the respective petitioners as trespassers over the land in question and imposed penalty and so also attached their crops and directed them to be auctioned. Stating such order as passed by the Tehsildar to be in contempt of this Court and in disobedience of the order dated 11.05.2006, these contempt petitions have been filed. The Tehsildar has pointed out in his reply to show cause notice that the land in question was taken over in possession on 11.03.2006 and such facts were available on record and even prior to that, the proceedings had been adopted for dispossessing the trespassers as reported by the Patwari concerned on 22.03.2006 that the possession of the land in dispute had already been taken over as per the mutation entry for the financial year 2003-04. The Tehsildar has also produced on record a copy of the Daily Diary as maintained by 5 the Patwari concerned of the events dated 11.03.2006 noticing that nobody was found in possession of the land in question and the intruders including the petitioners were warned not to trespass over the land in question. It has been pointed out that the orders so passed by the Tehsildar were challenged in respective appeals by the petitioners that were also dismissed by the Additional Collector, Nohar on 06.10.2006. It has also been pointed out that the matters were taken in further appeals before the Revenue Appellate Authority who has proceeded to keep such appeals pending till decision of the writ petitions. Though learned counsel appearing for the petitioners attempted to argue that the non-petitioner has failed to adduce cogent evidence to show if the possession was taken over from the petitioners in accordance with law; and also submitted that even in the reply filed by the Government Advocate in the writ petition, no such fact was asserted that the possession had already been taken over; and further submitted that the mutation entries are only relevant for fiscal purposes and are not decisive on physical possession, however, this Court is clearly of opinion that such submissions do not make out a case that the Tehsildar concerned has at all attempted to willfully disobey the orders passed by this Court. 6 The record that was available before the Tehsildar has been noticed in his detailed order wherefrom it was clearly made out that the land in question had already been taken over in possession of the Government and it was a case of trespass in the month of July 2006. When on the facts that were available with him, the Tehsildar came to the conclusion that there had been an alteration of the status of the land in question by the petitioners and looking to the overall circumstances, this Court is satisfied that the Tehsildar was perfectly justified in continuing with the proceedings and deciding the same. Noticeable it is that the allotments made to the petitioners were set aside as back as on 15.11.2002 and the Board of Revenue dismissed the appeals as back as on 09.12.2003. The writ petitions were filed on 23.02.2004 but then, no interim order was passed earlier and even on 11.05.2006, this Court only directed that status quo as it was existing on that date shall be maintained. In fact, such status quo was required to be maintained by both the parties and that obviously included the petitioners too. Having regard to the subject matter of dispute and the documents as filed by the Tehsildar with his replies, without any comments on the merits of the case, this Court is clearly of opinion that the Tehsildar cannot be said to have proceeded 7 in any attempt at willful disobedience. In fact, the order passed by the Tehsildar has gone through further scrutiny by the Additional Collector who has maintained the same after noticing all the facts. It is true that the respondents in the replies to the writ petitions did not positively state that the possession had been taken over from the petitioners, but then, it is noticed that the petitioners, while filing the writ petitions in the month of February 2004, stated that the respondents were 'trying to dispossess' them. The proceedings thereafter taken by the Patwari and the Tehsildar cannot be said to be unauthorised or wholly without jurisdiction; nor the present one could be said to be a case where the Tehsildar or any officer has attempted to over reach the process of law, particularly when the matter related to the public utility land. Taking an overall view of the matter, this Court finds no reason wherefor the non-petitioner be proceeded in contempt. The contempt petitions are rejected and the notices are discharged. (DINESH MAHESHWARI), J. Mohan/