Brijinder Kumar Sharma vs Mubarak Singh And Another
2022 Latest Caselaw 47 j&K

                                                                        S.No.18



             HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH
                              AT JAMMU
                         (through virtual mode)

                                                  CPOWP No.10/2016



Brijinder Kumar Sharma                                            ...Petitioner(s)
                          Through: None
      V/s
Mubarak Singh and another                  ...Respondent(s)
                       Through: None
Coram: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV KUMAR, JUDGE


                                       ORDER

On the last date of hearing also, there was no representation on behalf of

the petitioner.

This is a petition for initiating contempt proceedings against the

respondents for willful disobedience and violation of the judgment dated

16.03.2011 passed in OWP No.144/11 titled Brijinder Kumar Sharma v. JDA

and another. The operative portion of the judgment reads thus:-

"In view of the aforesaid candid statement made by Mr. Sharma representing J.D.A, nothing survives in both the petitions to prosecute them any further. However, it is made clear that before starting the auction process, the J.D.A would ensure that the aforesaid piece of land which has been made subject matter of dispute in both the writ petitions at hand is excluded."

This petition is pending since the year 2016 and the respondents have

taken a preliminary objection with regard to the limitation. It is submitted that

the judgment was rendered by this Court in the year 2011 whereas instant

petition has been filed in the year 2016 without explaining the delay.

Be that as it may, from a perusal of the judgment of which disobedience

is alleged it clearly transpires that on the basis of statement made by Mr.

Adarsh Sharma, Advocate, a direction was issued to the JDA not to include the

land subject matter of the writ petition in the auction. In the contempt petition I

could not find any allegation that respondent-JDA has put the subject land also

to auction, rather grievance of the petitioner is that the he wanted to raise

construction but there is interference by the JDA. If that be the position, it

could be a fresh cause of action for which remedy would lie somewhere else.

The contempt petition is, therefore, not maintainable in the absence of

any demonstration of violation of the judgment by the respondent-JDA. It

appears that the petitioner has realized this and has, therefore, stopped

appearing in the matter.

Proceedings in this contempt petition are, accordingly, closed.

(Sanjeev Kumar) Judge JAMMU:

01.02.2022 Vinod, Pvt. Secy.

Whether the order is speaking :Yes/No Whether the order is reportable:Yes/No