TMI Blog2005 (10) TMI 611X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nt was dismissed. 3. It is necessary to mention some basic facts for the decision of the appeal. The respondent, C.L. Mishra, sent a letter to the Rajasthan High Court that a temple had been constructed on a land adjoining Bagla Mukhi Sadhana Kendra in Sector 3, Malviya Nagar, Jaipur, a place which was earmarked for a park and the construction had been made without prior approval of the competent authorities. The letter was treated as a public interest litigation and was registered as D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6051 of 1997 at the Jaipur Bench of the High Court. Notices were issued to the Jaipur Municipal Corporation, Rajasthan Housing Board, Collector Jaipur, and two private persons namely Shyam Lal Gulani and Hargum Dass Motwani, who ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... over the strip of land which remained vacant in the colony or in respect of which the title was in dispute and has kept all such lands in its own ownership. The Municipal Corporation thus denied any responsibility in the matter of removal of encroachment from the land. 4. After noticing the pleas and contentions raised by various parties, the High Court disposed of the writ petition by the order dated 8.5.2000 and the last two paragraphs thereof, which contain the operative portion of the order, are being reproduced below :- We would, therefore, dispose of this petition by directing that the Municipal Corporation, Jaipur shall be responsible for removal of encroachment from the land handed over to it for maintenance etc. by the Rajas ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... issuing the notices in compliance with law, to the encroachers and shall dispose of the matter within a period of six month from today. If so requested, the Municipal Corporation shall also afford hearing to the Petitioner on the question as to whether a prima facie case of encroachment is made out. 5. The Commissioner of the Municipal Corporation, Jaipur, gave a report on 14.9.2000 to the effect that encroachment over the land had been made by Sindhi Panchayat. The matter was thereafter considered by a Committee for Regulations and Bye-Laws of Jaipur Municipal Corporation which gave a detailed report running into several pages on 15.2.2001. The Committee held that it was not a case of encroachment and the public temple had not been con ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s pending before this Court since 2.1.2001. The Respondent No. 1 and 2 i.e. Shri Inderjit Khanna, Chief Secretary, Government of Rajasthan and Shri G.S. Sandhu, Secretary to the Government, Department of Urban Development Housing and Local Self Government, Government Secretariat, Jaipur had already been deleted from the array of non-petitioners by the Court on 14.5.2001. Respondent No. 3 Smt. Nirmala Verma, the then Mayor, Municipal Corporation, Jaipur has already expired. The only respondent who remains is the Chief Executive Officer, Jaipur Municipal Corporation, Jaipur who too is said to have been transferred somewhere else. By the order dated 29.11.2001 eight weeks time from the date of receipt of the certified copy of the order was gra ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t petition by the Municipal Corporation, Jaipur is not maintainable and it stands accordingly dismissed. The present appeal has been filed challenging the above quoted order dated 28.5.2004. 9. We have heard learned counsel for the parties. It is important to note that while disposing of the main D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6051 of 1997, the High Court did not record any positive finding on the question as to whether any encroachment has been made on public land. The High Court left it to the Jaipur Municipal Corporation to take a decision in that regard within six months and if it came to a finding that public land had been encroached upon, it was directed to take action for removal of the encroachment after issuing notice to the p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he case is that when the contempt petition came up for hearing on 28.1.2002, the counsel for the writ petitioner made a prayer to withdraw the contempt petition with liberty to file a fresh petition, if need be. The contempt petition was accordingly dismissed as withdrawn with liberty reserved to the writ petitioner to file a fresh petition. Normally, contempt is a matter between the Court and the alleged contemnor. The applicant who files the contempt petition does so only for the purpose of bringing it to the notice of the Court that the order passed by it has not been complied by it. However, in the present case, the counsel for the writ petitioner (petitioner in the contempt petition) made a prayer for withdrawing the contempt petition ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
