SHARMA, J. - (1.) WHILE deciding contempt petition learned Single Judge directed the appellant thus- " Either allot saline plot within one month to Shri Ashok Kumar Bansal Advocate, or suffer civil jail for one week. ' It is against this direction that the instant appeal has been held.
(2.) CONTEXTUAL facts depict that on November 24, 1983 a notification came to be issued inviting applications for allotment of Saline Plots in Kuchaman Ring Area which were to be allotted in accordance with the provisions of Rajasthan Land Revenue (Saline Areas Allotment) Rules, 1970. The respondent Sh. Ashok Kumar Bansal, Advocate, submitted application for allotment of plot in Kuchaman Salt Area. When the application of respondent was not considered, he preferred the writ petition seeking allotment of the plot in his favour. Meanwhile another notification dated February 26, 1986 came to be issued withdrawing the earlier notification dated November 24, 1983. therefore, the writ petition was dismissed on November 6, 1986. The respondent filed another writ petition challenging withdrawal of the notification, which came to be decided on February 18, 1993 with the observation that the withdrawal of notification was not proper and direction was issued to the Government to revive the applications filed pursuant to the notification dated November 24, 1983. When the order dated February 18, 1993 was not complied with the contempt petition was filed, which came to be decided on August 23, 1993 with certain directions to Officials. The application of respondent was rejected on February 10, 1994 as he was not the local resident, therefore he filed another contempt petition, which came to be decided on July 3, 1997 with the observation that the appellant willfully disobeyed the orders of this court and one month time was granted to allot the saline plot to the respondent Advocate, failing which the appellant was directed to suffer Civil Jail for a period of one week. Learned Single Judge in the impugned order observed as under:- " The respondent also submitted reply to the contempt application, denying the claim of the petitioner. The petitioner submitted rejoinder to the reply submitted by the non- petitioners. Later on number of affidavits have also been filed. The original file allotting the various plots was also produced before me, I found that on the basis of fake certificate of experience various plots were allotted to the different persons but the petitioner was avoided. When this fact was brought to the notice of Additional Advocate General Mr. Bhandari, he assured in the open court that the respondents will allot a plot to the petitioner. But on the next day, he made a false excuse that the petitioner being an Advocate, no plot can be allotted to him. The respondents also alleged to have cancelled the allotments made in favour of other persons. " The matter is argued by Mr. Bharat Vyas at great length and a large mass of authorities are cited. It is canvassed that in Keshav Dev Meena vs. State (S. B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4898/94, decided on September 19, 1996) the procedure adopted by the State of Rajasthan for allotment of plot in Kuchaman Saline area was upheld by this court, therefore, it could not be held that the allotment was contrary to the Rules. It is also urged that in contempt petition a direction to allot the plot to respondent, who is an Advocate and is not local resident of the area, could not have been issued. Reliance is placed on V. Kanakrajan vs. General Manager South Eastern Railway (1996) 10 SCC 102 and Vijay Singh vs. Mittanlal Hindoliya (1997) 1 SCC 258. We are of the considered view that the respondent being an Advocate was not entitled to allotment of saline plot. Even otherwise he was not the local resident of the area. The respondent thus was not able to make out a case for contempt before the learned Single Judge against the appellant. Issuance of further direction in the contempt proceeding was not permissible as is held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in V. Kanakrajan vs. General Manager South Eastern Railway and Vijay Singh vs. Mittanlal (supra ).
(3.) FOR these reasons, we allow the appeal and set aside the impugned order of the learned Single Judge. .;