[Cites 6, Cited by 0]
Bombay High Court
Prabhudas Damuabhai Patel And Ors vs The Collector Dadra And Nagar Haveli And ... on 6 March, 2026
Author: Milind N. Jadhav
Bench: Milind N. Jadhav
P25. CIVIL WPST-6298-26+3.odt
Amberkar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION (ST) NO. 6298 OF 2026
Mohansinh Pratapsinh Chauhan .. Petitioner
Versus
The Collector,
Dadra and Nagar Haveli & Ors. .. Respondents
WITH
WRIT PETITION (ST) NO. 6295 OF 2026
Prabhudas Damuabhai Patel & Ors. .. Petitioners
Versus
The Collector,
Dadra and Nagar Haveli & Ors. .. Respondents
WITH
WRIT PETITION (ST) NO. 6300 OF 2026
Harendrasinh Gomansinh Solanki & Anr. .. Petitioners
Versus
The Collector,
Dadra and Nagar Haveli & Ors. .. Respondents
WITH
WRIT PETITION (ST) NO. 6301 OF 2026
Hiranjsinh Gambhirsinh Parmar & Anr. .. Petitioners
Versus
The Collector,
Dadra and Nagar Haveli & Ors. .. Respondents
....................
Ms. Varsha Palav a/w Mr. Ajinkya Palav & Prajwal Ghadge,
Advocates for Petitioners
...................
CORAM : MILIND N. JADHAV, J.
DATE : MARCH 06, 2026
1 of 15
P25. CIVIL WPST-6298-26+3.odt
P. C.:
1. Heard Ms. Palav, learned Advocate for Petitioners.
2. Urgent intervention and indulgence of this Court is sought by
Ms. Palav at 4.30 p.m. today. At the outset she would draw my
attention to the order dated 05.03.2026 which is a common order
passed in 4 Petitions. Said order reads thus:-
"1. Not on board. Mentioned by way of filing a praecipe dated
04.03.2026.
2. Heard Ms. Palav, learned Advocate for Petitioners.
3. These are the matters in respect of passing of the orders passed by
Collector in which Union Territory of Dadra and Nagar Haveli under the
provisions of the Dadra and Nagar Haveli Land Reforms Regulation Act,
1971. These regulations were enacted pursuant to the repeal and rescission
of the Portuguese law governing the holding of agrarian land enacted under
the 1919 regime.
4. There is reference to the decision of the Supreme Court in the case
of Divyagnakumari Harisinh Parmar & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors. 1.
Though in the said decision, Civil Appeal filed by the Appellants therein was
rejected but in paragraph No. 98 thereof, Supreme Court has given liberty
to the Appellants to approach the Competent Authority under the Dadra
and Nagar Haveli Land Reforms Regulation Act, 1971 which were
formulated subsequently and published in the Gazette of India to regulate
holding of the agrarian lands. Prima facie, it is seen that said regulation
was enacted with a purpose to abolish the erstwhile Alvara system and
grant of substantive rights in agrarian land to Alvara holders within the
prescribed ceiling limit as stated therein.
5. Impugned Judgments & Orders are appended at Exh. A to the
Petitions. It is prima facie seen that it is stated therein that predecessors of
the Petitioners were already granted occupancy rights under the said
Regulation and therefore Petitioners cannot get the benefit of the above
decision dated 24.09.2025. Case of the Petitioners is however to the
contrary. Petitioners have claimed to be holding the subject lands through
their ancestors and therefore apprehend that their substantive rights will he
hampered if they are dispossessed. Coercive action is apprehended by
Petitioners.
6. Ms. Palav would submit that any subsequent action in furtherance of
the impugned judgments dated 27.02.2026 should be prevented by this
1 Civil Appeal No. 1479 of 2006 decidd on 24.09.2025
2 of 15
P25. CIVIL WPST-6298-26+3.odt
Court in view of the substantive question of law involved in the present
case.
7. After hearing Ms. Palav and perusing the impugned judgments and
the grounds stated in the Petitions, an arguable question of law has been
made out for adjudication by Ms. Palav for stay of the impugned judgments
and orders dated 27.02.2026. Undoubtedly Respondents will be fully heard
in the matter.
8. Hence it is directed that no coercive steps against the land of the
Petitioners shall be taken by the Competent Authority / Collector /
Administrator of the Union Territory in regard to and in furtherance of the
impugned judgments & orders dated 27.02.2026 until the present Writ
Petitions are heard for admission by this Court. There shall be stay of the
impugned judgments and orders dated 27.02.2026 in that regard. Also no
coercive steps including putting up of any signboard shall be done by the
Respondents in the meanwhile.
9. In view of the above, issue notice to Respondents.
10. Humdast permitted. In addition to Court's notice, Petitioners are
directed to serve the Respondents a copy of this order and Writ Petitions
and inform about the next date of hearing by any permissible mode of
service and file appropriate affidavit of service with tangible proof thereof.
11. Respondents shall filed Affidavit-in-Reply within a period of two
weeks from today and place details of benefits received by Petitioners'
predecessor in-title in the reply. Affidavit-in-Rejoinder, if any to be filed
within a period of one week thereafter.
12. Stand over to 25th March 2026."
2.1. Ms. Palav would submit that the copy of the aforesaid order was
served on Mr. Sagar Thakkar, Mamlatdar, Silvassa on 05.03.2026 at
21:40 Hrs through WhatsApp on his mobile number 9429295041 by
the Advocate herself for information. She would submit that along
with forwarding letter dated 06.03.2026 i.e. today, the said order was
once again served through WhatsApp upon the same person i.e.
Mamlatdar, Silvassa on 06.03.2026 at 12:03 Hrs today (afternoon).
She would draw my attention to the fact that the aforesaid order was
also served along with forwarding letter dated 06.03.2026 upon the
3 of 15
P25. CIVIL WPST-6298-26+3.odt
Collector through WhatsApp on his mobile number 7903526080 at
11:57 Hrs. today. That apart she would submit that the aforesaid
order was also forwarded and served along with forwarding letter
dated 06.03.2026 upon the Office of the Collector / Administrator
through Dispatch Clerk Single Window, District Secretariat, Dadra and
Nagar Haveli, Silvassa and upon the Talathi through WhatsApp on his
mobile number 7698661299 at12:40 Hrs. today. She undertakes to
file affidavit of service to that effect in this Court on the next date.
3. In the Application which is made by Ms. Palav today on the
instructions received from Petitioners, the aforesaid facts are
mentioned and prima facie after going through the same, I find no
reason to disbelieve the same. I have perused the Application.
4. Grievance is expressed by Petitioners that despite conveying the
order dated 05.03.2026 passed by this Court, the officers of the
concerned Statutory Authorities of the Union Territory have acted in
gross violation and wilful disobedience and contrary to the directions
contained in the order passed by this Court. Ms. Palav would submit
that by virtue of the order dated 05.03.2026, this Court directed that
no coercive steps be taken against the land of the Petitioners by the
Competent Authority / Collector / Administrator of the Union
Territory in regard to and in furtherance of the impugned judgments &
order dated 27.02.2026 until the present Writ Petitions are heard for
4 of 15
P25. CIVIL WPST-6298-26+3.odt
admission by this Court. She would submit that this Court had
categorically clarified that no coercive steps including putting up of
any signboard be taken by the Respondents in the meanwhile.
5. The aforesaid action was duly anticipated by Petitioners and
therefore when the matters were mentioned, said order was passed
after hearing the Advocate for Petitioners. Insofar as the issue on
merits of the matter is concerned that undoubtedly will be decided by
this Court after hearing the Respondents in accordance with law.
There is no issue whatsoever about the same. What is pointed out by
Ms. Palav is the fact that despite the aforesaid order being conveyed,
said Authorities through the Talathi one Mr. Ranjitbhai have installed
the signboard stating "NOTICE THIS LAND BELONGS TO
GOVERNMENT. TRESPASSERS WILL BE PROSECUTED". She has
placed on record two photographs of the signboards which have been
put up by the Respondents according to Petitioners. Said photographs
are scanned and reproduced hereunder in order to enable the
Respondents to take cognizance of the same if at all Respondents or
any officers of Respondents have put up the said signboards:-
5 of 15
P25. CIVIL WPST-6298-26+3.odt
6 of 15
P25. CIVIL WPST-6298-26+3.odt
7 of 15
P25. CIVIL WPST-6298-26+3.odt
5.1. I am informed that order dated 05.03.2026 was delivered today
in the office of Collector by hand-delivery at 09:30 Hrs. in the
morning. She has placed before me copy of the covering letter which
is endorsed by Dispatch Clerk, Single Window, District Secretariat,
DNH, Silvass by putting his stamp despite which the impugned action
has been taken at 12:30 Hrs. It is seen that the impugned action was
preplanned because what is seen from the photographs is the fact that
the signboards may have been prepared well in advance and were kept
ready for taking the impugned action.
6. In the Application dated 06.03.2026 which is filed by Ms. Palav,
it is stated on instructions that the aforesaid action on the part of
Collector, Mamlatdar and Talathi is despite the fact that service of the
order dated 05.03.2026 was duly effected on them and despite
knowing the contents of the said order. It is submitted that knowingly,
deliberately and intentionally, the aforesaid action prima facie
amounts to violation of the directions contained in the order dated
05.03.2026. She places reliance on the fact that the said order was
duly informed to the concerned officers and it cannot be a case that
the concerned officers were unaware about the said order. Learned
Advocate for Petitioners is directed by this Court to file affidavit of
service to enable the Court to consider the willful and deliberate
violation of this Court's order by Respondents and its officers. If this
8 of 15
P25. CIVIL WPST-6298-26+3.odt
Court finds that Respondents and / or any of their officers be that as it
may either the Collector / Mamlatdar or Talathi despite receiving copy
of the order dated 05.03.2026 have taken the impugned action by
putting up the aforesaid signboards on the land of Petitioners, this
Court will have to take a stern view of the said act on the part of
Respondents and its functionaries and issue contempt notices in
accordance with law.
7. At this juncture it is highly arguable on the part of Respondents
that they may not be aware of the order dated 05.03.2026 and
therefore they have acted upon in putting up the signboards. This is
because the Respondents are not before me. Be that as it may,
Respondents are directed to file appropriate explanation in writing
and more specifically as averred by Petitioners that person responsible
for putting up these signboards is the Talathi one Mr. Ranjitbhai. He is
directed to file an appropriate affidavit in this Court in respect of
putting up the aforesaid signboards which is prima facie seen to be in
gross violation and defiance of the directions contained in the order
dated 05.03.2026.
8. In the above facts, attention of Respondents is drawn to the
decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Isran Ahmad Khan v.
Amarnath Prasad & Ors.2. Paragraph Nos. 22 and 23 of the said
2 Juddgment dated 24.02.2026 in Contempt Petition (Civil) Nos. 5/2026 & 6/2026
9 of 15
P25. CIVIL WPST-6298-26+3.odt
decision are relevant in the facts of the present case. They read as
under:-
"22. Without verbiage, we straightaway refer to the dicta enunciated by a
learned 3-Judge Bench in Sita Ram v Balbir @ Bali, (2017) 2 SCC 463:
'40. Wilful disobedience to a direction issued by this Court on 24-10-
2013 [Sita Ram v. Balbir, (2014) 13 SCC 489: (2014) 5 SCC (Cri)
722] on the part of the respondent is quite evident. He was party to
the proceedings and bound by the order and as such his liability on
that court stands established. Further, by his defiance of the
direction so issued, he also obstructed administration of justice. He
is thus liable for committing civil contempt as well as criminal
contempt. But the medical professionals, namely, Dr Munish
Prabhakar and Dr K.S. Sachdev were not parties to the matter where
the direction in question was passed.
41. As regards the liability of the aforesaid medical professionals,
questions that arise are : (1) whether a person, who is not bound by
a direction issued by the court could be held guilty for committing
contempt of court for his conduct in either directly aiding and
abetting violation on the part of the person who is bound by such
direction; and (2) what is the extent of liability of such person.
42. In Seaward v. Paterson [Seaward v. Paterson, (1895-99) All ER
Rep 1127: (1897) 1 Ch 545 (CA)] the landlord of the premises
concerned had obtained an injunction against Paterson i.e. his
tenant restraining him from doing or allowing to be done anything
on the premises which would be a nuisance to the landlord and
from using the premises otherwise than for the purposes of a private
club. Alleging that the tenant had committed contempt of the court
by allowing the premises to be used for boxing matches, the
landlord applied for committal of two other persons, namely,
Sheppard and Murray on the ground that they had aided and
assisted the tenant in his disobedience to the injunction. The
following passages from the judgment of Lindley, L.J. are quite
instructive: (All ER pp. 1130 F-G & 1131 B-D)
Now, Let us consider what jurisdiction the court has to make an
order against Murray. There is no injunction against him--he is no
more bound by the injunction granted against Paterson than any
other member of the public. He is bound, like other members of the
public, not to interfere with, and not to obstruct, the course of
justice; and the case, if any, made against him must be this, not that
he has technically infringed the injunction, which was not granted
against him in any sense of the word, but that he has been aiding
and abetting others in setting the court at defiance, and deliberately
treating the order of the court as unworthy of notice. If he has so
conducted himself, it is perfectly idle to say that there is no
jurisdiction to commit him for contempt as distinguished from a
breach of the injunction, which has a technical meaning.
10 of 15
P25. CIVIL WPST-6298-26+3.odt
***
A motion to commit a man for breach of an injunction, which is
technically wrong unless he is bound by the injunction, is one thing;
and a motion to commit a man for contempt of court, not because
he is bound by the injunction by being party to the cause, but
because he is conducting himself so as to obstruct the course of
justice, is another and a totally different thing. The difference is very
marked. In the one case the party who is bound by the injunction is
proceeded against for the purpose of enforcing the order of the
court for the benefit of the person who got it. In the other case, the
court will not allow its process to be set at naught and treated with
contempt.
43. In Z Ltd. v. A-Z and AA-LL [Z Ltd. v. A-Z and AALL, (1982) 1 All
ER 556: 1982 QB 558: (1982) 2 WLR 288 (CA)] the plaintiff had
obtained injunction against certain defendants and the assets of one
such defendant against whom the injunction was granted, were held
by a bank. The bank was served with a copy of the injunction but
the defendant concerned had not yet been served. While considering
the question whether any disposal of assets belonging to the
defendant by the bank would make it liable for committing
contempt of court, it was stated as under : (All ER pp. 566g-j &
567a-b)
"I think that the following propositions may be stated as to the
consequences which ensue when there are acts or omissions which
are contrary to the terms of injunction : (1) The person against
whom the order is made will be liable for contempt of court if he
acts in breach of the order after having notice of it. (2) A third party
will also be liable if he knowingly assists in the breach, that is to say
if knowing the terms of the injunction he wilfully assists the person
to whom it was directed to disobey it. This will be so whether or not
the person enjoined has had notice of the injunction.
***
I will give my reasons for the second proposition and take first the
question of prior notice to the defendant. It was argued that the
liability of the third person arose because he was treated as aiding
and abetting the defendant (i.e. was an accessory) and as the
defendant could himself not be in breach unless he had notice it
followed that there was no offence to which the third party could be
an accessory. In my opinion this argument misunderstands the true
nature of the liability of the third party. He is liable for contempt of
court committed by himself. It is true that his conduct may very
often be seen as possessing a dual character of contempt of court by
himself and aiding and abetting the contempt by another, but the
conduct will always amount to contempt by himself. It will be
conduct which knowingly interferes with the administration of
justice by causing the order of the court to be thwarted."
44. The extent of liability of third party in such actions was
considered by the House of Lords in Attorney General v. Times
11 of 15
P25. CIVIL WPST-6298-26+3.odt
Newspapers Ltd. [Attorney General v. Times Newspapers Ltd.,
(1991) 2 All ER 398: (1992) 1 AC 191: (1991) 2 WLR 994 (HL)] In
that case the Attorney General had brought action against two
newspapers seeking permanent injunction restraining them from
publishing material from a book written by a person who was
formerly a member of the security service and by terms of his
employment was bound by confidentiality which would stand
breached if his memoirs were published. While the interlocutory
injunctions restraining publication of the material pending trial of
such action were granted against those two newspapers, three other
newspapers published extensive extracts and summaries of the book
following which proceedings for criminal contempt against them
were brought by the Attorney General. At the trial of those
proceedings those three other newspapers were held to be guilty of
criminal contempt. Lord Brandon of Oakbrook concluded as under :
(All ER pp. 405j & 406a-c)
"... The claims of the Attorney General in the confidentiality actions
were for permanent injunctions restraining the defendants from
publishing what may conveniently be called Spycatcher material.
The purpose of the Millett injunctions was to prevent the publication
of any such material pending the trial of the confidentiality actions.
The consequence of the publication of Spycatcher material by the
publishers and editor of The Sunday Times before the trial of the
confidentiality actions was to nullify, in part at least, the purpose of
such trial, because it put into the public domain, part of the material
which it was claimed by the Attorney General in the confidentiality
actions ought to remain confidential. It follows that the conduct of
the publishers and editor of The Sunday Times constituted the actus
reus of impeding or interfering with the administration of justice by
the court in the confidentiality actions."
45. In a separate concurring opinion Lord Jauncey of Tullichettle
stated as under : (Attorney General case [Attorney General v. Times
Newspapers Ltd., (1991) 2 All ER 398: (1992) 1 AC 191: (1991) 2
WLR 994 (HL)] , All ER p. 426j)
"I turn to consider whether there is any reason why
established principle should not be applied to the situation in
this case. I do not accept the proposition that to apply
established principles in the foregoing circumstances would
effectively be to convert every injunction from an order in
personam to an order contra mundum. That proposition
ignores the distinction between the breach of an order by the
person named therein and interference with the course of
justice resulting from a frustration of the order by the third
party."
47. We thus hold that the respondent is guilty of having violated the
order dated 24-10-2013 [Sita Ram v. Balbir, (2014) 13 SCC 489:
(2014) 5 SCC (Cri) 722] passed by this Court and for having
obstructed administration of justice. We also hold Dr Munish
Prabhakar and Dr K.S. Sachdev guilty for having helped the
12 of 15
P25. CIVIL WPST-6298-26+3.odt
respondent in his attempts and thereby obstructing administration
of justice. Having held so, we could straightaway have imposed
appropriate punishment under the Act. However, we deem it
appropriate to grant one more opportunity to these contemnors. The
respondent has not filed any affidavit nor tendered an apology. At
the same time for Dr K.S. Sachdev, Managing Director of the
company that owns the hospital is said to be 76 years of age.
Considering the fact that these are medical professionals with
sufficient standing, in our view ends of justice would be met if one
more opportunity is granted to them to present their view on the
issue of punishment. In the circumstances, we direct presence of
these three contemnors on 2-1-2017. The respondent is in custody
and therefore appropriate production warrant shall be issued under
the signature of the Registrar of this Court ensuring presence of the
respondent before this Court. The police concerned is directed to
facilitate such production of the respondent. The contemnors can
also present their views and make appropriate submission in writing
on or before 23-12-2016.'
(emphasis supplied)
23. Simply put, thus, it is no longer res integra that a party, once becomes
or is made aware of an Order of this Court, if yet acts in wilful default or
deliberate non-compliance or any such like conduct against/in breach of the
Order concerned, makes itself liable to face the full wrath of Contempt
Jurisdiction. In the cases at hand, the Government and the Additional Chief
Secretary have been aware of the Order dated 20.05.2025, at the very least
from 22.07.2025 and onwards, as clear from the correspondence placed on
record in the Affidavit adverted to hereinbefore. Nothing more requires to
be stated on the factual matrix. In any event, we are bound by Sita Ram
(supra), which squarely applies herein."
9. Copy of this order shall be placed before the learned
Government Pleader by Advocate for Petitioners. Learned GP is
directed to take appropriate instructions from the concerned Collector
and accordingly apprise the Court on the next adjourned date at the
time when these Petitions shall be heard.
10. Copy of this order shall be forthwith served on the Respondents.
If Respondents have received copy of the order dated 05.03.2026 and
have acted in defiance of the said order, they are directed by this Court
forthwith and immediately to remove the signboards or any other
13 of 15
P25. CIVIL WPST-6298-26+3.odt
signboards that they may have installed on the lands belonging to the
Petitioners. Needless to state that Respondents shall present their case
and this Court shall hear the Respondents but that would be strictly
with respect to the merits of the mater and in accordance with law.
Insofar as the order dated 05.03.2026 is concerned, the same is
explicitly clear and therefore this order is passed.
11. I was inclined to place these matters tomorrow itself because it
is a Court working Saturday of this Court but Ms. Palav in her usual
fairness apprised me that because it is a Saturday, offices of
Respondents may be closed. In that view of the matter, I am placing
these 4 Petitions on board on 09.03.2026. I am also aware about the
fact that these 4 Petitions have been listed for further hearing on
25.03.2026 as per the order passed on 05.03.2026. The need and
necessity of placing these 4 Petitions has arisen in view of the violation
of the directions contained in paragraph No. 8 the order dated
05.03.2026 by Respondents by putting up the signboards in the land
belonging to the Petitioners despite there being a specific direction to
that effect as apprehended by the Petitioners. Respondents shall
ensure that appropriate instructions shall be given to the learned GP.
Learned GP is directed to take appropriate instructions and appear
before this Court either himself / herself or depute a responsible
Pleader along with necessary instructions.
14 of 15
P25. CIVIL WPST-6298-26+3.odt
12. Stand over to 9th March, 2026 under the caption "First on
Board".
Amberkar [ MILIND N. JADHAV, J. ]
Digitally
signed by
RAVINDRA
RAVINDRA MOHAN
MOHAN AMBERKAR
AMBERKAR Date:
2026.03.06
19:29:53
+0530
15 of 15
