- (1.) 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.
(2.) 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 cathcment."
(3.) 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.;