1 1 S.B. CIVIL CONTEMPT PETITION NO.160/2006 Jagdish Vs. Smt.Meera & Ors. Date of Order :: 9th January 2009. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH MAHESHWARI Mr.M.S.Purohit,for the petitioner Mr.D.K.Godara ) Mr.Pappu Sangwa) for the respondents .... The petitioner submitted the writ petition (CWP No.2719/2006) to this Court essentially with the submissions that a piece of land admeasuring 15x20 ft. situated at village Jaitpur, Tehsil Loonkaransar, was in possession of one Jagdish S/o Rawta Ram who had also constructed a room thereat; and he had purchased this possession on 07.05.1992 for a consideration of Rs.7,700/-. The petitioner averred that he had moved an application to the Gram Panchayat, Jaitpur on 19.08.1999 for regularisation of his possession and issuing patta in his favour and deposited the requisite fees; and stated the grievance that despite pendency of such proceedings, the respondent No.3, the Sarpanch of the Gram Panchayat, who was unfavourably poised towards him, issued a notice on 23.02.2006 (Annex.4 to the writ petition) asking him to remove the construction alleged to be that of an encroachment. The petitioner submitted that the Panchayat was out and out to remove his possession, even though his application for regularisation remained pending. 2 Considering the submissions as made in the writ petition, on 24.05.2006, this Court directed issuance of notice to the respondents for filing reply and by way of interim order it was directed that the respondents would not pass any order unless the pending proceedings for regularisation were decided. This Court ordered,-. “Issue notice to the respondents for filing reply, returnable within a period of four weeks. Meanwhile, respondents will not pass any order unless its pending proceedings for regularization are decided.” The petitioner has filed this contempt petition on 11.07.2007 with the submissions that the copy of the order so passed by this Court was not accepted by the Gram Sewak and by the Sarpanch of the Panchayat concerned and then, the same was sent by registered post on 26.05.2006. The petitioner has stated that in spite of the knowledge of the order passed by this Court, the non-petitioner took up the proceedings at the site on 28.05.2006 in willful disobedience; and demolished the wall of the construction available thereat. The petitioner has placed on record the photographs of the site with the bills of the photographs bearing dates 27.06.2006 and 25.06.2006. The petitioner has pointed out that he had also requested the Additional Commissioner, Bikaner to ensure compliance of the order passed by this Court 3 whereupon necessary directions were issued by the Additional Commissioner to the Vikas Adhikari, Panchayat Samiti, Loonkaransar on 05.06.2006 (Annex.10). The petitioner submits that the non-petitioners have willfully demolished the wall after passing of the interim order by this Court with intention to remove the proof of his old possession and the act of non-petitioners being of deliberate disobedience, they deserve to be punished suitably. The non-petitioner No.1 has filed reply to the contempt petition with the submissions, inter alia, that the petitioner has filed the writ petition while concealing material facts that the proceedings for removal of the encroachment had already been adopted and notices were issued and lastly, the encroachment in question was removed with the help of police on 19.03.2006. The answering non-petitioner, while placing on record the copies of the proceedings of the Gram Panchayat, has submitted that on 05.03.2006 necessary resolution was adopted; then, notices were issued to the petitioner on 10.03.2006; site report was prepared on 19.03.2006; and the removal proceedings were approved by the Panchayat in its meeting dated 20.03.2006. The non-petitioner has also placed on record a resolution dated 05.04.2006 whereby it was noticed that the encroachment had already been removed and it was resolved that the petitioner was not entitled to claim 4 regularisation; and the application for regularisation was ordered to be consigned to record. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the documents as filed with the reply, ex facie, appear to have been prepared later and in one sitting only; that the petitioner did not receive any such alleged notice; and that the proceedings as suggested by the non-petitioner are apparently manipulated. Having examined the records of the related writ petition and so also of this contempt petition, this Court is unable to find a clear case of willful disobedience against the non- petitioners warranting the proceedings in contempt. Even when this Court has directed that the respondent would not pass any order unless the pending proceedings of regularisation are decided, when the non-petitioner has, prima facie, shown that prior to the passing of the said order, the application as moved by the petitioner for regularization had already been ordered to be consigned to record by the resolution dated 05.04.2006; and prior to that, encroachment removal proceedings had been undertaken on 19.03.2006 and were approved on 20.03.2006, it cannot be accepted that the non-petitioners have drawn all such proceedings after passing of the order by this Court. The photographs with bills dated 27.06.2006 and 25.06.2006 as produced on record by the 5 petitioner hardly appear to be of evidence that non-petitioners did anything after passing of the order by this Court. All the proceedings as stated by the non-petitioners essentially being those of the record of the Gram Panchayat, cannot be assumed to be fake or fabricated. Noticeable it is that even as per the averments in the writ petition, as back as on 08.02.2006, the Gram Panchayat had informed the petitioner about the complaint made by the villagers of his having a possession on the public utility land and he was called upon to produce evidence within 15 days and else Panchayat would be removing the construction. Taking a comprehensive view of the record, this Court is unable to find a clear case of contempt having been made out against the non-petitioners. This contempt petition is, therefore, rejected. Notices are discharged. The record of this contempt petition, however, be kept attached to the file of CWP No.2719/2006. (DINESH MAHESHWARI), J. s.soni