Allahabad High Court
Latur Singh And 20 Others vs Dr. Sagir Ahmed District ... on 2 May, 2023
Bench: Rohit Ranjan Agarwal
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 7
Case :- CONTEMPT APPLICATION (CIVIL) No. - 5736 of 2016
Applicant :- Latur Singh And 20 Others
Opposite Party :- Dr. Sagir Ahmed District Magistrate Moradabad
Counsel for Applicant :- Abhishek Srivastava,Arpit Agarwal,Ramesh Kumar Shukla
Hon'ble Rohit Ranjan Agarwal,J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the applicants and Sri P.K.Giri, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State.
2. The writ Court on 24.08.2016 while disposing of Writ C No.39340 of 2016 passed the following order :
"Heard learned counsel for the parties.
For construction of bridge, the land of the petitioners was acquired and possession of the land has been taken by the State-Authorities without taking proceedings under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and without entering into any private settlement for execution of the sale deed.
The petitioners have approached the Writ Court for payment of compensation.
We dispose of the matter directing the petitioners to make an appropriate application before the District Magistrate, respondent no. 2 for payment of compensation. If such an application is filed, the District Magistrate will decide the same by means of a reasoned and speaking order within four weeks from the date of production of a certified copy of this order."
3. Pursuant to the order passed by writ Court, the State authorities on 02.01.2017 decided the application of the applicants for grant of compensation, copy of which was brought on record as Annexure 1 to the said affidavit of compliance filed on 20th February, 2017. Subsequently again the said order was clarified further by the order passed by the authorities on 01.09.2022, copy of which has been brought on record as Annexure 1 to the affidavit dated 13th September, 2022.
4. This Court after hearing counsel for the parties and perusing the material on record finds that the order of writ Court was only to the extent that in case appropriate application is made by the applicant before the District Magistrate for payment of compensation, the same was to be decided by the reasoned and speaking order, which the authorities have done in the year 2017 itself.
5. Counsel for the applicant insisted for examining the matter on merit. This Court finds that this is a Court of execution and not Court of adjudication. 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 that the while dealing with a contempt petition, the Court is not expected to conduct a roving inquiry. Relevant para 8 of the judgment is extracted hereas under :
"We are dealing with a civil contempt. The Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 explains a civil contempt to mean a willful disobedience of a decision of the Court. Therefore, what is relevant is the "willful" 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 willfulness 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 vigor 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."
6. In view of the dictum of Apex Court, this Court finds that the contempt Court cannot venture into the matter on merits as it is exercising jurisdiction under Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act and is not a Court of adjudication.
7. As the order of writ Court has been complied by the opposite party, there is no force in the argument raised by the applicant's counsel.
8. In view of the aforesaid fact, as the order of writ Court has been complied with by the authorities, the contempt application stands dismissed.
Order Date :- 2.5.2023
Kushal
