Mohd. Majid Khan vs Mr. B.P. Singh And Ors.
2004 Latest Caselaw 75 Del

JUDGMENT

Manmohan Sarin, J.

1. This is a petition filed under Sections 11 and 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act by the petitioner. In CM.No. 2062/2003 on 18.2.2003, the following Order was passed :-

"CM.2062/2003

Notice. Mr. J.R.Goel accepts notice.

List on 6th May, 2003. Till next date of hearing, there shall be a stay of dispossession."

The case of the petitioner is that despite the above Order having been passed in the presence of the counsel for the petitioner, respondents 2 and 4 have violated the Order and in blatant violation of the same on 4.3.2003 removed the stock of bricks numbering about 600 and other materials forcibly. Petitioner duly complained of the same and has given particulars of the truck numbers by which the said bricks were removed.

2. Counter affidavit has been filed by respondents. It is claimed in the counter affidavit that the Order dated 18.2.2003 was not served on the respondents. The letter from the respondent's counsel was received on 5.3.2003.

3. It is averred that the Executive Engineer vide letter dated 24.2.2003 had asked the Junior Engineer to remove the bricks and lodge FIR, if necessary. The Junior Engineer vide letter dated 28.2.2003, informed the police chowki in-charge that they propose to remove the bricks on 28.2.2003 and sought assistance. It is claimed that General Secretary of the Residents Welfare Society also protested and the residents desired that the bricks be removed and the unauthorised occupation may be put an end to. Respondents claim that the petitioner was not in possession considering that in the month of December 2002 a crockery sale had been organized in the said lawn. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the sale of crockery which was organized was far away from the plot in occupation of the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that once the stay Order against dispossession has been passed in the presence of the counsel, the respondents had no reason whatsoever to take law into their hands and Act in contravention of the Orders passed by this Court and hence they ought to be punished for the contempt committed.

4. By a separate Order dated 15.1.2004, the writ petition has been dismissed in the absence of any statutory or other enforceable right or claim on the said land. Although the respondent's case is that the petitioner was not in possession and had stacked the bricks after moving the Court with a view to grab the land. It is claimed that petitioner had placed the bricks on the plot in the night of 22/23rd March, 2003. Respondents therefore acted only to protect the Government property. It is claimed that the letter written by their counsel was received and came to the knowledge of the contemnors only on 3.3.2003. Counsel for petitioner submits that in the writ petition the respondents were served with the Order on 28.2.2003. Verification of the Office Report does not show service of the stay Order.

5. The respondent's case is that the contemnors came to know of the stay Order only through the letter of the counsel which came to their knowledge only on 3.3.2003. The respondents have removed the bricks of their own during the pendency of the matter and their counsel being admittedly aware of the stay Order passed by the Court. Be that as it may, the respondents should have moved appropriate application before the Court and sought relief.

6. Mr. B.P.Sinha, Executive Engineer, Mr. Hardan Singh, Assistant Engineer, Mr. Harpal Singh, Ziledar and Mr. B.N.Rai, Supervisor are present in Court. They have also produced in Court the register, showing the receipt of letter dated 18.2.2003 from counsel Mr. J.R.Goel on 3.3.2003. Mr. B.P.Sinha states that the letter had been put up before him on 4.3.2003. It had been received vide diary No. 466 and the same is corroborated by the entries in the dispatch register. On the facts, as they appear on record, it cannot be said that the respondents had been served with the notice of stay prior to 3.3.2003. A perusal of the dispatch register for the relevant period has also shown that usually there is a delay in receipt of letters by the respondents. All the four respondents/contemnors tender their unconditional apology. Regret is expressed for taking the action and state that while the matter was pending in Court they realise that they should have moved an appropriate application for seeking the same relief.

7. In the circumstances, noted above, the apology of the respondents/contemnors is accepted. The contempt notice is discharged.

8. Learned counsel for the petitioner, at this stage, submits that the respondents ought to consider the petitioner's case for allotment also under their policy. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that in case under the policy and scheme, as may be made in future, petitioner is eligible, the same would be duly considered under the terms of the policy or scheme objectively upon petitioner applying. Respondents/contemnors state that they have no objection to the petitioner collecting the bricks, which had been removed from the site. Respondents shall also not claim any charges for removal of the bricks.

Contempt petition is disposed of accordingly. The records, as produced, have been returned to the respondents.