Allahabad High Court
Nishat Ahmad vs Jasjit Kaur, D.M. And Another on 3 October, 2023
Bench: Rohit Ranjan Agarwal
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:189057
Court No. - 9
Case :- CONTEMPT APPLICATION (CIVIL) No. - 161 of 2023
Applicant :- Nishat Ahmad
Opposite Party :- Jasjit Kaur, D.M. And Another
Counsel for Applicant :- Raj Kishore Yadav,Raj Kamal Singh
Counsel for Opposite Party :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Rohit Ranjan Agarwal,J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned Standing Counsel for the State.
2. The writ Court on 09.05.2022 while disposing of Writ-C No.11753 of 2022 had passed the following order :
"1. The grievance raised by the petitioner in the present writ petition is he has not been paid compensation for the part of land of Plot No.3074 measuring total area 0.1490 hectare owned by him, which was taken by the respondents while constructing the National Highway No.709B (from Delhi to Saharanpur).
2. The case of the petitioner in the writ petition is that he is the owner of Plot No.3074 measuring total area 0.1490, part of which was taken by the respondents while constructing the aforesaid National Highway. The compensation therefor was not paid.
3. The learned counsel for the respondents submitted that demarcation of the land owned by the petitioner shall be carried out within a period of two months after duly notifying him about the date and time of demarcation.
4. Considering the stand taken by the learned counsel for the respondents, in our opinion, the writ petition can be disposed of with direction to the respondents to get the demarcation of the land owned by the petitioner carried out at the spot in his presence and in case it is found that possession of any portion of land of the petitioner has been taken, due process be followed either to handover the possession thereof to the petitioner or to pay the compensation therefor. The needful shall be done within three months from the date of receipt of copy of this order."
3. From perusal of the order passed by writ Court it seems that direction was issued to the opposite party to get the demarcation of the land owned by the applicant carried out in his presence and in case it was found that any portion of the land of the applicant has been utilized, the compensation was to be paid. However, in case the land of the applicant was not utilized by the opposite party, the possession was to be handed over to the applicant.
4. Pursuant to the order of the writ Court, a detailed compliance affidavit has been filed by the State on 21.03.2023 wherein in paras 7 to 11 and 13 to 20 it has been specifically stated by the State that proceedings for demarcation was initiated and it was found that two civil suits were filed one by applicant being Civil Suit No.65 of 2021, which is pending before Civil Judge (Senior Division), Kairana, District Shamli and another being Civil Suit No.38 of 2021 filed by Romil Bansal and 4 others vs. Hasim and 7 others), which is pending before Civil Judge (Junior Division) Kairana District Shamli. Further para 11 to 16 of the affidavit of compliance reveals that various sale deeds have been executed by the applicant in favour of certain persons. Para 17 reveals that the name of the purchaser has not been mutated over the revenue record, which has been sold. Moreover, an application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. has been filed for lodging the FIR against the applicant. Moreover, suit under Section 144 of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 is still pending.
5. From perusal of the compliance affidavit filed by the State it seems that the State has already complied the order of the writ Court and has come up with serious allegation against the applicant, which cannot be adjudicated in contempt proceedings as no roving enquiry can be done, as held by 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. Relevant para 8 of the judgment is extracted hereas under :
"8. 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 above, no case for contempt is made out. The contempt application is misconceived.
7. Dismissed.
Order Date :- 3.10.2023
Kushal
