Jammu & Kashmir High Court
Shiv Kumar vs Rohit Khajuria on 21 February, 2025
Sr. No.03
HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH
AT JAMMU
Case: CPLPA No. 13/2018
In APLPA No. 25/2018
IA No. 2/2018
IA No. 3/2018
IA No. 1/2018
c/w CPLPA No. 10/2018
Shiv Kumar, age 37 years
S/o Sh. Hari Lal Lalhal, ...Petitioner(s)/Appellant(s)
R/o Village Kanthal, Tehsil
Basohli, At Present Chak Sona
Nupa, Kathua
Through: Mr. Karman Singh Johal, Advocate.
V/s
01. Rohit Khajuria, Deputy .... Respondent(s)
Commissioner, Kathua.
02. Sh. Jatinder Misra
Assistant Commissioner, Revenue,
Kathua.
03. Sh. Avtar Singh Jasrotia,
Tehsildar, Kathua.
04. Sh. K. K. Mangotra
Chief Engineer, Irrigation, Jammu.
05. Sh. Anil Gupta
Executive Engineer,
Irrigation Division, Kathua.
06. Sh. Rajesh Gupta,
Executive Engineer,
Town and Drainage Division,
Transport Nagar, Yard No.1,
Narwal, Jammu.
07. Sh. D. K. Ram Pal,
Executive Engineer,
Public Works (R&B) Department,
Division Kathua
Through: Ms. Monika Kohli, Sr. AAG.
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ATUL SREEDHARAN, JUDGE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH SEKHRI, JUDGE
ORDER (ORAL)
21.02.2025
(Atul Sreedharan-J)
01. Both the contempt petitions are pending since the year 2018.
The first contempt petition which has been filed is CPLPA No.
10/2018.
The brief facts of the case are as follows;-
02. It is a contention of the contempt petitioner that a boundary
wall was destroyed in an act of contempt of order dated
18.12.2017 passed by a Coordinate Bench which is passed in an
LPA preferred by the contempt petitioner against the order passed
by the learned Single Judge dated 10.11.2017.
03. By the said order, the Coordinate Bench in paragraph 2
affirmed the order passed by the learned Single Judge which had
directed the contemnors herein to consider the case of the
contempt petitioner after giving him an opportunity of hearing
preferably within a period of six to eight weeks.
04. Learned Single Judge had also directed that the
appellant/petitioner shall not be dispossessed from the land in
question without following due process of law provided it is
established that the appellant/petitioner is the owner in
possession of the subject land. That part of the learned Single
Judge's order merged with the operative portion of the Coordinate
Bench's order which held that it found no reason to interfere in
the decision of learned Single Judge and further directed that if
after following due process of law it is found by the authority
concerned that the appellant/petitioner is not entitled to any
portion of land then possession thereof shall not be taken till one
week after passing of the speaking order.
05. It is also held that the authority concerned was in view of the
facts that an opportunity of hearing has been given to the
appellant/petitioner to consider the carrying out of fresh
demarcation in respect of 09 Marlas of land claimed by the
appellant/petitioner in Khasra No. 149 min.
06. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the said
direction notwithstanding, the contemnors, in gross violation of
the said order, without giving him a notice of demolition,
demolished the boundary wall and dug a trench for laying down of
the drain for its public utility service. On account of such act of
the contemnors, the CPLPA No. 10/2018 was filed in which the
order dated 13.03.2018 was passed whereby, status quo was
ordered to be maintained.
07. Learned counsel for the petitioner also submits that the
status quo order was also flouted and the contemnors continued
with the excavation on the said land even after the passing of the
order dated 13.03.2018.
08. Mr. Monika Kohli, learned Sr. AAG appearing on behalf of the
contemnors has vehemently denied the allegations. She has stated
that pursuant to the order passed by the learned Coordinate
Bench on 18.12.2017, the Deputy Commissioner, Kathua gave an
opportunity of hearing to the contempt petitioner on 05.03.2018,
heard the contempt petitioner an also to took into account his
written submissions. It recorded the crux of the contempt
petitioner's case to the extent that he had purchased a plot of land
in Khasra No. 149 by a sale deed dated 25.02.2000, and
thereafter, the said land was mutated in his favour vide No. 1361
dated 17.01.2002 and that the plot of land is in his possession
since then.
09. Learned Sr. AAG has referred paragraph No. 2 of the said
judgment wherein the Coordinate Bench had even given the option
of carrying out fresh demarcation of land if need be. She further
stated that in compliance of the same, the land was again got
demarcated by the Tehsildar, Kathua whose report was taken into
consideration and as per which mutation No. 1361 dated
17.01.2002 was alleged to have been prepared after concealing the
factual position. Thereafter, it has passed the order dated
05.03.2018 itself and the set aside the mutation No. 1361 dated
17.01.2002 and directed the Tehsildar Kathua to make the
necessary correction in the Revenue Records and thereafter, also
directed the Assistant Commissioner to initiate the departmental
enquiry against the erring officers for making the incorrect
revenue entry and directed the Executive Engineer to complete the
remaining work of Deep drain Nallah as per the approved
alignment of the project. In pursuance to the second direction, the
Executive Engineer carried out the demolition of the boundary
wall seven days after the order was passed which is 13.03.2018.
Under the circumstances, learned Sr. AAG negating the
submissions put forth by the learned counsel for the contempt
petitioner, has stated that the order passed by the Coordinate
Bench dated on 18.12.2017 is very clear and that it was only
required of the contempt petitioners to hold their hands for seven
days after the passing of this speaking order which, according to
learned counsel for the contemnors was complied with in its letter
and spirit.
10. Learned counsel for the contempt petitioner has submitted
that the contempt petitioner was never intimated of the said order
dated 05.03.2018 as regards this, learned Sr. AAG has drawn the
attention of this Court to the documentation relating to the
dispatch of the order dated 05.03.2018 by UPC to the contempt
petitioner, which the contempt petitioner has vehemently refuted
of having received the same.
11. Learned Sr. AAG has also submitted that Mr. Rohit Khajuria,
who was the then Deputy Commissioner of Kathua and he was
retired since then, has appeared pursuant to the previous order
passed by this Court has also filed his personal affidavit and the
same is taken on record. She has also stated that Mr. Rohit
Khajuria has an impeccable reputation with regards to his
integrity and honesty. As far as that aspect of argument is
concerned, we find that the same is not germane in a contempt
petition. The integrity and honesty of a public servant is no
defence against wilful, disrespect/contempt of order passed by
this Court or any Court.
12. In the course of hearing a contempt petition, the Court is
only concerned whether the order passed by this Court has been
complied with its letter and spirit and no further.
13. As regards the conclusion of the contempt petition, the same
can only result in the punishment of the contemnor and for that,
this Court must be absolutely certain without a shadow of doubt
that the contemnor who is sought to be sent to prison for violation
of its order is indeed responsible for wilful disobedience of its
order.
14. However, in the facts and circumstance of the present of
case, it is impossible for this Court to arrive at such a finding
where the contempt petitioner says that there has been no
compliance/documents on record which have been filed by way of
objection showing that the petitioner was given an opportunity of
appearance which he seems to have been availed, as is recorded in
the order dated 05.03.2018 and that his written submissions were
also taken into account and only thereafter, the order was passed.
That order also reflects that a report was called from the Tehsildar,
Kathua with regard to re-demarcation of the property wherein it
was found that previous revenue entry relied by the contempt
petitioner was erroneous and was directed to be struck out. Since
there has been compliance on record, this Court cannot see the
degree of compliance which is impossible to ascertain from the
facts and circumstances of the case.
15. As regards the photographs which have been filed along with
the contempt petition (LPA No. 13/2018) in order to show that
there was excavation that was carried out even after the order of
status quo was passed in CPLPA No. 10/2018. From the
photographs, it is impossible to conclude whether the JCB was
operating on the land where the status quo was ordered or on the
adjoining land as the photographs show the filling up of a Tractor
Trolley with dirt that has already been excavated but does not
show any further excavation in the trench which was allegedly
excavated earlier on 12.03.2018. In such a situation, the Court is
unable to arrive at a finding that contemnors are guilty as charged
by the contempt petitioner.
16. Under the circumstances, proceedings in both the contempt
petitions are closed.
17. Both the contempt petitions are 'disposed of' as being
inconclusive.
(RAJESH SEKHRI) (ATUL SREEDHARAN)
JUDGE JUDGE
Jammu
21.02.2025
Renu
