Delhi Development Authority vs Bennete Coleman & Co. Ltd.
1995 Latest Caselaw 72 Del

JUDGMENT

Cyriac Joseph, J.

(1) Learned Counsel for the petitioner and the respondents (including the newly added respondent) agreed that the civil contempt petition itself can be heard and disposed of. Accordingly, civil contempt petition was heard and it is being finally disposed of.

(2) M/S. Bennette Coleman & Company Ltd., filed Cwp 130/81 challenging the land acquisition proceedings in respect of the land of field No.108 Min (39-1)and 109 (15-3) of village Massudpur, New Delhi. The company also filed Cm 201 /81 praying for stay of dispossession of the petitioner from the land. By orderdated 23/01/1981 in Cm 201/81 this Court directed as follows- "Notice for 12.2.81. Status quo as at present be maintained."On 7/04/1981 the Court passed the following order:-"Status quo in regard to possession till the final disposal of the writ petition.Counsel for the respondent states that except two biswas in Khasra No.108the possession of all other land is taken on 29/12/1980. Counsel for the petitioner contests this claim and has filed an affidavit in this respect stating that possession is with petitioner. Considering these rival claims, I order that the status quo as of today in regard to the possession shall be maintained by the parties till the disposal of the writ petition."

Thereafter, the company filed Cm 7306/92 praying for a direction restraining the Delhi Development Authority (for short called 'DDA') and the land acquisition authorities from interfering with the construction of a compound wall on the said property by the petitioner. It was stated in the application that in view of the various attempts by mischief mongers to encroach upon the said land, the company who was in possession of the land might be permitted to construct the compound wall on the property without prejudice to the rights of the petitioner and the respondents in the writ petition. While the said application was pending,the company constructed the compound wall and finally when the application come up for hearing on 29/03/1993 the learned Counsel for the company informed the Court that the compound wall had already been constructed.Thereupon, the application was dismissed by the Court observing that the order as prayed for, if passed by the Court, would create further complications. It is in these circumstances that the petitioner has filed this civil contempt petition alleging that the action of the respondent in constructing the compound wall amounted to committing civil contempt.

(3) It is clear from the averments in the civil contempt petition and in the orders passed in Cm 201 /81 in Cw 130/81 that there was disputes between the petitioner here in and the respondent company regarding the possession of the land inquestion. Both the petitioner Dda as well as the respondent company claimed to be in possession of the land and this was specifically noted in the order dated 7/04/1981 in Cm 201/81. However, the dispute was not resolved by the Court in that order. The Court only directed that status quo as on the date of the order in regard to the possession should be maintained by the parties till the disposal of the writ petition. It is obvious that the Court was not in a position to determine who amongst the contestants was in possession of the land. In these circumstances the respondent company cannot be said to have willfully disobeyed the order of the Court by proceeding on the assumption that the company was in possession of the land. The further question is that even assuming that the company was in possession of the land, was it open to the company to construct a compound wall on the land in view of the order directing to maintain status quo regardingpossession, without permission. It may be possible to argue that when the direction was only to maintain status quo in regard to possession and there was no specific order prohibiting any construction on the land by the party in possession, the party in possession was free to make constructions. However, in this case the respondent company chose to file an application in the writ petition seeking an order to prevent the Dda and the land acquisition authorities from interfering with the construction of the compound wall. While the said application was pending the compound wall was constructed. According to the affidavits filed by the respondents in the civil contempt petition they were constrained to proceed with the construction of the compound wall without waiting for the outcome of the application in view of the imminent danger of encroachment of the land by mischief mongers and in view of the delay in disposing of the application. Learned Counsel for the respondents pointed out that even though there was reference in the application to 'permission', the prayer in the said application was not really for permission but for a direction to the Dda and the land acquisition authorities not to interfere with the construction of the boundary wall. From the copy of the application (Annexure-A) produced by the respondent it can be seen that it is possible to take a view that the statement of the learned Counsel for the respondents is correct. Whatever that be, while disposing of Cm 7306/92 this Court did not comment on the conduct of the respondent-company in constructing the compound wall during the pendency of the application. It is asserted by the learned Counsel for the respondent-company that they were not seeking permission of the Court to construct the compound wall and that they were only seeking protection by the Court from the interference of the Dda and the land acquisition authorities with the construction of the compound wall. It is possible to understand the prayer in Cm 7306/92 in the manner in which the learned Counsel for the respondent-company wants me to understand. The worst that may be said against the applicant in Cm 7306/92 is that it was not proper on its part to construct the boundary wall while the said application was pending. ButI am not concerned with the propriety as such in this civil contempt petition. The real question is whether the respondent-company willfully disobeyed the orders of the Court passed on 23/01/1981 and 7/04/1981. From the conduct of the respondent-company in making an application to the Court to prevent the DDA and land acquisition authorities from interfering with the construction of the compound wall, it is obvious that the respondent-company did not want to construct the compound wall behind the back of the Dda and the land acquisition authorities or the Court. Moreover, it had stated in the application that the purpose of constructing the compound wall was to prevent encroachment of land by mischief mongers and that the compound wall was being constructed without prejudice to the rights and contentions of the parties in the writ petition. It had also stated in the application that in the event of the company not succeeding in the write petition it would be obliged to remove the compound wall and it would not be entitled to claim any compensation from the authorities concerned towards the compound wall. In view of the filing of the application and the above mentioned statements contained in the application, I am inclined to hold that the respondent-company had no intention to willfully disobey the orders of this Court. On the other hand, having noted the usual conduct of the litigants in this Court, I should observe that the conduct of the respondent-company in filing an application in the write petition bringing to the notice of the Court its intention to construct the compound wall for the protection of the land stated to be in its possession, without prejudice to the rights of the petitioner and the respondents in the writ petition,deserves appreciation. Even this Courtesy is not shown to the Court by most of the litigants who obtain the so called status quo orders. In this context it should be noted that the petitioners who also claim possession of the land were alerted by Cm 7306/92 about the respondent-company's proposal to construct the compound wall. But the petitioners did not move a little finger to prevent the construction of the compound wall while the construction was going on. If the petitioners were actually in possession and if they were of the view that construction of the compound wall by the respondent-company was in violation of the Court's order, they could have moved the Court for appropriate orders to prevent such construction. Having failed to do so, the action of the petitioners in filing the contempt petition after the completion of the construction will not serve any useful purpose.Though I am accepting the contention of the respondent-company that by constructing compound wall it had no intention to violate the orders passed by this Court and that its sole intention was to protect the land from encroachment, I make it clear that I am not expressing any opinion on the question of possession of the land which was left unresolved by the Court while passing orders in Cm 201 /81.The controversy regarding possession of the land will have to be resolved in the write petition itself. In this context I should also refer to the affidavits filed by Shri Ashok Kumar Jain, Chairman of the company and Shri Ramesh Chand Jain,Executive Director. It is specifically stated by them that the compound wall was built without prejudice to the rights of the parties in the writ petition and that in the event of not succeeding in the writ petition the compound wall would be removed without claiming any compensation from the authorities concerned. It is further stated that the claims of the parties in the writ petition would be examined by this Court without referring to the construction of compound wall and the company would not make any claim on the basis of the compound wall to satisfy this Court in regard to possession of the land in question. Even though I am dismissing the civil contempt petition, the respondent-company will be bound by the statements made in those affidavits. In fact the Dda can be happy and grateful to the company for taking necessary steps for protecting the land from encroachment during the pendency of the writ petition because in the event of succeeding in the, writ petition the Dda will have the land protected from encroachers at the cost of the respondent-company.In these circumstances I am not satisfied that the respondents have committed any willful disobedience of the orders of this Court making them liable to be punished for committing civil contempt. Accordingly, civil contempt petition is dismissed.