Allahabad High Court
Shiv Shankar vs Radha Krishna, Executive ... on 3 November, 2022
Bench: Rohit Ranjan Agarwal
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 10
Case :- CONTEMPT APPLICATION (CIVIL) No. - 651 of 2022
Applicant :- Shiv Shankar
Opposite Party :- Radha Krishna, Executive Engineer
Counsel for Applicant :- Sunil Kumar Pandey
Hon'ble Rohit Ranjan Agarwal,J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant and Sri R.K. Mishra, learned Standing Counsel for the State.
Applicant had approached the writ Court through Writ-C No. 40815 of 2018 which was disposed off on 04.12.2019 with a direction upon respondent authorities to decide the claim of the applicant in respect of plot no. 5/1 and 5/2. The applicant had claimed that he is co-sharer in plot no. 5/1. On 04.12.2019 following order was passed by the writ Court;
"Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the State-respondents.
The petitioner claims that he is the co-sharer in Gata Nos.5/1 as also 5/2, which has been utilized for the construction of approach road by the Public Works Department. The compensation to some of the co-sharers have been paid whereas the petitioner, who is illiterate labourer and had no knowledge of the acquisition have not been paid any compensation.
In the counter affidavit a stand has been taken in paragraph no.6 that the co-sharers of gata no.5/2 have been invited to appear before respondent no.2 and present their documents for receiving compensation.
So far as co-sharers in gata no.5/1 is concerned, the petitioner has filed document of title, i.e., khatauni for the fasli year 1425-1430 (Annexure-1 to the writ petition).
Since in the counter affidavit a stand has been taken by respondent no.4 that the co-sharer, who have been left out from the payment of compensation, they have been invited for receiving the compensation, as such, the writ petition is being disposed of with the direction to the respondent no.4 to consider the claim of the petitioner in respect of plot no.5/1 as well as 5/2 and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law, with regard to payment of compensation, if he is found eligible. The said decision shall be taken, as far as possible, within a period of four months from the date a certified copy of this order is presented before the respondent no.4.
The writ petition is, accordingly, disposed of with the above order. "
Pursuant to the directions of writ Court the authorities on 05.04.2022 had passed a detailed order and found that the applicant had entered into a compromise with co-sharer and was thus not entitled for any compensation as far as his share in plot no. 5/1 is concerned. Copy of the order dated 05.04.2022 has been brought on record as annexure No. 1 to the affidavit of compliance.
After hearing learned counsel for the parties, this Court finds that the writ Court had only directed for deciding the claim of the applicant in respect of plot no. 5/1 and 5/2 which the authorities had already done on 05.04.2022. Argument of learned counsel for the applicant cannot be accepted that due to pendency of litigation before the lower court the authorities were not correct to hold that the applicant had no share in plot no. 5/1 on the basis of the alleged compromise.
Recently, the Apex Court in Dr. U.N. Bora, Ex. Chief Executive Officer and others Vs. Assam Roller Flour Mills Association and another 2022 (1) SCC 101 has held as under:-
"8. We are dealing with a civil contempt. The Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 explains a civil contempt to mean a wilful disobedience of a decision of the Court. Therefore, what is relevant is the "wilful" disobedience. Knowledge acquires substantial importance qua a contempt order. Merely because a subordinate official acted in disregard of an order passed by the Court, a liability cannot be fastened on a higher official in the absence of knowledge. When two views are possible, the element of wilfulness vanishes as it involves a mental element. It is a deliberate, conscious and intentional act. What is required is a proof beyond reasonable doubt since the proceedings are quasi-criminal in nature. Similarly, when a distinct mechanism is provided and that too, in the same judgment alleged to have been violated, a party has to exhaust the same before approaching the court in exercise of its jurisdiction under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. It is well open to the said party to contend that the benefit of the order passed has not been actually given, through separate proceedings while seeking appropriate relief but certainly not by way of a contempt proceeding. While dealing with a contempt petition, the Court is not expected to conduct a roving inquiry and go beyond the very judgment which was allegedly violated. The said principle has to be applied with more vigour when disputed questions of facts are involved and they were raised earlier but consciously not dealt with by creating a specific forum to decide the original proceedings."
Considering the facts of the case as under the contempt jursidiction this Court cannot dwell into the question of fact which has not been adjudicated by the Court of fist instance. This Court further finds that no roving and fishing enquiry can be done by the contempt Court while exercising jurisdiction under Section 12 of Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.
No case for contempt is made out. The contempt application is devoid of merits and is hereby dismissed as the order of writ Court had already been complied by the opposite party.
Applicant has a remedy of approaching the appropriate legal forum by challenging the order dated 05.04.2022 passed by the opposite party, if so advised.
Order Date :- 3.11.2022
Shekhar
