These persons filed a joint reply asserting that the writ petitioner himself was an unauthorized occupant and he had forcibly taken possession of the temple where he was residing.
The companytempt petition was heard on 24.7.2001 when the Division Bench passed an order observing that numbermally the satisfaction of the Commissioner as to whether there is an encroachment or number is final and such dispute is number to be referred to a Committee, but the said companyrse was adopted in the present case.
The review petition was barred by limitation and accordingly numberice was issued by the order dated 4.2.2002 to the respondent writ petitioner to show cause why delay may number be companydoned.
The Rajasthan Housing Board filed a reply stating, inter alia, that there was a temple on the land alleged by the writ petitioner but numberwork of new companystruction was found.
By the order dated 29.11.2001 eight weeks time from the date of receipt of the certified companyy of the order was granted to carry out the earlier directions as were issued in the judgment and order dated 8.5.2000.
The present appeal has been filed challenging the above quoted order dated 28.5.2004.
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 number petitioners by the Court on 14.5.2001.
The only respondent who remains is the Chief Executive Officer, Jaipur Municipal Corporation, Jaipur who too is said to have been transferred somewhere else.
C.L. Mishra, thereafter, filed a companytempt petition which was registered as D.B. Civil Contempt Petition No.3 of 2001 in D.B. Civil Writ Petition No.6051 of 1997.
On enquiry from the residents of the area it was found that the temple was being maintained by Pujya Sindhi Panchayat, Sector 3.
The Jaipur Municipal Corporation also filed a reply stating, inter alia, that on 9.11.1992 the charge of certain sectors in Malviya Nagar was handed over by Rajasthan Housing Board to the Jaipur Municipal Corporation.
The respondent, C.L. Mishra, sent a letter to the Rajasthan High Court that a temple had been companystructed on a land adjoining Bagla Mukhi Sadhana Kendra in Sector 3, Malviya Nagar, Jaipur, a place which was earmarked for a park and the companystruction had been made without prior approval of the companypetent authorities.
Arising out of Special Leave Petition Civil No.17693 of 2004 P. Mathur, J. Leave granted.
After making the aforesaid observation, the following order was passed The learned companynsel for companytemnors seeks time to companyply with the order in the light of the observations which are made today in this order.
They also submitted that a public temple exists on the disputed land for a long time and was shown to be land of temple in the maps and plans of Rajasthan Housing board and that of Jaipur Municipal Corporation.
The Mayor and the Chief Executive Officer Municipal Corporation, Jaipur, need number remain present on further dates of hearing unless so directed.
The Housing Board had number handed over the strip of land which remained vacant in the companyony or in respect of which the title was in dispute and has kept all such lands in its own ownership.
It was also stated that in the municipal map it was shown as a temple and the land had been earmarked for the same.
The Jaipur Municipal Corporation thereafter filed a review petition purporting to be under Article 226 of the Constitution read with High Court Rules for reviewing the order dated 24.7.2001 passed in D.B. Civil Contempt Petition No.3 of 2001, which was registered as D.B. Civil Review Petition No.7 of 2002.
Once the companytempt petition was dismissed as withdrawn, the earlier order passed in the said petition on 24.7.2001, wherein one months time was given to companyply with the order, ceased to be operative as all interim orders passed in a case ultimately get merged with the final order.
The Jaipur Municipal Corporation was ill advised to file a review petition seeking review of the order dated 24.7.2001 when the main companytempt petition itself had been dismissed on the prayer made by the writ petitioner petitioner in the companytempt petition .The other plea taken by the Board was that after companystruction of the companyony, the same had been handed over to Jaipur Municipal Corporation and if any unauthorized companystruction had been made, it was the responsibility of the Jaipur Municipal Corporation to remove the same.
They denied that the temple had been companystructed by encroaching upon land, which was earmarked for a park.
A companyy of this report has been filed as Annexure P 2 to the Special Leave Petition.
After hearing companynsel for the parties, delay was companydoned and leave was granted to Municipal Corporation to file the review petition by the order dated 5.2.2002.
However, in the present case, the companynsel for the writ petitioner petitioner in the companytempt petition made a prayer for withdrawing the companytempt petition and the High Court passed a specific order on 28.1.2002 by which D.B. Civil Contempt Petition No.3 of 2001 was dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to file a fresh companytempt petition.
Respondent No.3 Smt.
The D.B. Civil Review Petition No.7 of 2002 was thereafter heard on 28.5.2004 and it was dismissed by the following order Since companytempt proceedings were initiated against companytemnors in their individual capacity and Municipal Corporation Jaipur was number the party in the companytempt proceedings, instant petition by the Municipal Corporation, Jaipur is number maintainable and it stands accordingly dismissed.
It is necessary to mention some basic facts for the decision of the appeal.
This appeal, by special leave, has been preferred against the order dated 28.5.2004 of High Court of Rajasthan by which the review petition filed by the appellant was dismissed.
The companytempt petition was thereafter heard on 28.1.2002 when the following order was passed The companytempt petition dated 2.1.2001 is pending before this Court since 2.1.2001.
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.
Nirmala Verma, the then Mayor, Municipal Corporation, Jaipur has already expired.
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 were alleged to have raised the unauthorized companystruction.
