Rameshwar Singh Gehlot vs Gaurav Goyal and Others

After having heard the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and having perused the material placed on record, we are unable to find it to be a case of deliberate disobedience and willful defiance by the non-petitioners of the order passed by this Court, so as to proceed against them in contempt jurisdiction. It is noticed that a letter petition was sent by the present petitioner stating grievance that the officers of Jodhpur Development Authority (''JDA'') proceeded to sanction a lay-out plan of a private colonizer in relation to the land of Khasra Nos. 785 & 786 of Village Mandore, District Jodhpur though the same comprised of river, nala and catchment. In the PIL petition (No. 11146/2011) registered on the letter so sent by the petitioner, the respondents submitted in the reply that the land allowed to be used was not forming the part of catchment, nala or river; and that no patta had been issued on such part of the land of catchment, nala or river.

A Division Bench of this Court found that there was some dispute regarding boundaries and demarcation of the land but the matter being of writ jurisdiction, directed the Collector concerned to get the land of khasra Nos. 785 & 786 demarcated; and ordered that in case any pattas were found to have been issued, they may be cancelled because admittedly such khasra Nos. 785 & 786 were the areas of river, nala and catchment. The Court observed in its order dated 12.07.2012 as under:-

It appears that there is some dispute regarding boundaries. The petitioner claims that the land has been allotted out of survey Nos. 785 and 786 which form part of river, nala and catchment.

In the circumstances, we direct the Collector to get the land demarcated of survey Nos. 785 and 786. Let measurement be done by an appropriate revenue officer within a period of one month from today and appropriate order be passed by the Collector within a period of six weeks thereafter and in case, it is found that any pattas out of the survey Nos. 785 and 786 have been issued, they be cancelled and no construction activity be permitted on any part of the survey Nos. 785 and 786 as admittedly that area is of river, nala and catchment.

The petitioner has now filed this contempt petition alleging that the order passed by this Court has not been complied with despite his having represented to the authorities concerned.

In reply to this contempt petition, it is submitted on behalf of the JDA that the matter had been referred to Collector, Jodhpur for carrying out necessary demarcation. On behalf of the Collector, an additional affidavit has been filed, inter alia, with the submissions that a report has been obtained regarding the land in question wherein, it was indicated that measurements were carried out on the basis of unauthenticated map because the authenticated survey/revenue map of village Mandore was not available. It has also been indicated that in the land in question, no part of Khasra No. 786 ''Gair Mumkin Bala'' and ''Gair Mumkin Pal'' had been included. It has, inter alia, been stated that,-

Though the learned counsel for the petitioner has attempted to argue that the requisite demarcation has not been carried out but looking to the totality of circumstances, we are unable to find it to be a case of deliberate disobedience by the concerned officers.

It is but apparent that there remains factual dispute regarding the boundaries. Even in the writ petition, it was the case of the JDA that the land in question was not the part of catchment, nala or river. The Court found that there was a dispute regarding boundaries and then directed the Collector to get the land demarcated. The Collector had issued necessary directions and has placed before the Court the report received from the Tehsildar, Jodhpur.

We shall not be entering into the factual controversy as regards demarcation and boundaries but, from the submissions sought to be made, it is evident that such a dispute does exist, which could be determined only after due inquiry.

Prima facie, when it is noticed that the authenticated plan of Village Mandore is not available; and from the available unauthenticated plan, the demarcation has been carried out, we find no reason to proceed on the assumption that any wrong assertion has been made by the non-petitioners or that there had been a deliberate disobedience by the non-petitioners.

Yet and however, if the petitioner still seeks determination of the facts otherwise, it is always open for him to take recourse to the appropriate remedies in accordance with law. Therefore, while leaving it open for the petitioner to take recourse to the appropriate remedies in accordance with law, it appear just and proper to terminate the proceedings in this contempt petition. Subject to the observations foregoing, this contempt petition, stands dismissed. Notices are discharged.