Umaayush Multicom Private Limited vs The State Of Jharkhand & Ors
2024 Latest Caselaw 8722 Jhar

Jharkhand High Court

Umaayush Multicom Private Limited vs The State Of Jharkhand & Ors on 3 September, 2024

Author: Sujit Narayan Prasad

Bench: Sujit Narayan Prasad

   IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
          Contempt Case (Civil) No. 279 of 2024
                              ----

Umaayush Multicom Private Limited ... ... Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand & Ors.

... ... Opp. Parties

-------

CORAM: HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN KUMAR RAI

------

For the Petitioner : Mr. Siddhartha Singh, Advocate Mr. Ujjal Choudhary, Advocate Ms. Ahana Bharadwaj, Advocate Mr. Ripumardan Shahi, Advocate For the Respondents : Mr. Ashutosh Anand, AAG III Mr. Sahbaj Akhtar, AC to AAG III

--------

rd Order No. 07 : Dated 3 September, 2024 Sujit Narayan Prasad, ACJ:

1. The instant contempt case has been filed under Sections

11 and 12 of the Contempt of Courts act, 1971 read with

Article 215 of the Constitution of India for initiating a

proceeding for willful and deliberate non-compliance of the

order dated 05.11.2020 passed in L.P.A. No. 786 of 2019.

2. The matter was heard on 20th August, 2024 and on that

date following order was passed:

3. 1.The instant contempt case has been filed under Sections 11 and 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 read with Article 215 of the Constitution of India for initiating a proceeding for willful and deliberate non-compliance of the order dated 05.11.2020 passed in L.P.A. No. 786 of 2018 upholding the order dated 14.06.2018 passed by the writ court in W.P.(C) No. 593 of 2017.

4. 2.Before proceeding further, it needs to refer herein that the issue of propriety of proceeding initiated under Section 4(h) of the Bihar Land

Reforms Act, 1950 was agitated before the writ court by filing a writ petition being W.P.(C) No. 593 of 2017.

5. 3.The learned Single Judge of this Court vide order dated 14.06.2018 had quashed the aforesaid proceeding by holding that the long running jamabandi cannot be cancelled by initiating a proceeding under Section 4(h) of the Act, 1950. For ready reference, the operative part of the order passed by the learned writ court is being referred as under:

"...

16. In view of the provisions contained in Section 2 of the Forest Conservation Act, 1980 and the judgment of the Hon‟ble Supreme Court rendered in the case of T. Godavarman (Supra.), it is abundantly clear that Section 2 of the Act, 1980 is applicable to the government as well as the private forest land, so as to check/restrict deforestation which ultimately results in ecological imbalance. The term „Forest‟ will not only mean forest as understood in the dictionary sense but will also include the land recorded as forest in the government record irrespective of its ownership. Thus, the purpose of Section 2 of the Forest Conservation Act, 1980 is to check deforestation irrespective of the fact that the land is owned by the government or by the private person. Nevertheless, the provisions of Section 2 of the Forest Conservation Act, 1980 or the judgment of the Hon‟ble Supreme court rendered in the case of T. Godavarman (Supra.) cannot be applied by the respondent authorities for cancellation of Jamabandi much less the long running one.

17. In view of the discussions made herein above, the impugned order 09.09.2016 and the consequential orders dated 15-12-2016 and 18.01.2017 are hereby quashed and set aside having been passed beyond the jurisdiction. The writ petition is, accordingly, allowed.

18. However, the respondents are at liberty to take appropriate recourse before the civil court having competent jurisdiction, if they claim the title of the government over the said land."

6. 4.The said order was carried by the State of Jharkhand to appeal and accordingly, the letters patent appeal being L.P.A. No. 786 of 2018 was filed. The said letters patent appeal was decided on 05.11.2020 wherein the judgment passed by the learned Single Judge had been upheld holding that a proceeding initiated under Section 4(h) of the Act, 1950 is not permissible. The liberty as was given to the respondents of the aforesaid writ petition by the

learned Single Judge to raise the issue of title by approaching the competent court of civil jurisdiction has been retained. For ready reference, the operative part of the order passed by the Division Bench of this Court is being referred as under:

"...

24. The learned Single Judge, on the basis of provisions as contained in Section 2 of the Forest Conservation Act, 1980 and the judgment rendered in the case of T.N. Godavarman Thirumulkpad (supra), has come to the conclusive finding that the Section 2 of the Act, 1980 is applicable to the government as well as the private forest land, so as to check/restrict deforestation which ultimately results in ecological imbalance. The term „Forest‟ will not only mean forest as understood in the dictionary sense but will also include the land recorded as forest in the government record irrespective of its ownership. Therefore, the provision of section 2 of the Act, 1980 or the judgment rendered in the case of T.N. Godavarman Thirumulkpad (supra) cannot be applied by the respondent authorities for cancellation of Jamabandi much less the long running one.

25. We, on appreciation of the findings recorded by the learned Single Judge and on the basis of discussions made herein above, are of the view that there is no reason to differ with the view/opinion of the learned Single Judge, by coming to the conclusion that the order dated 09.09.2016 passed by the revenue authorities is illegal and not sustainable in the eyes of law, as they have exercised power conferred under section 4(h) of the Act, 1950 which as per the discussions made herein above has been found to be not applicable in the facts and circumstances of the case as the case of the writ petitioner is that he is claiming title over the land in question on the basis of settlement made prior to 1st January, 1946 and further the additional Collector by way of order passed in Misc. Case No. 56/2015-16 has already passed order on 17.03.2016 holding therein that the present raiyats i.e Izhar Hussain and Akhtar Hussain are the recorded raiyats of Register-II in Thoka (Lot) No. 1665 which is absolutely correct and proper. But without questioning and without reversal of that order, a fresh proceeding was initiated under Section 4(h) of the Act, 1950 and further long running Jamabandi cannot be cancelled, save and except by instituting a litigation

before the Civil Court of competent jurisdiction. Hence, the order passed by the learned Single Judge cannot be faulted with.

26. Accordingly, since the instant appeal lacks merit, is dismissed."

7. 5.The State, thereafter, has carried the order passed by the Division Bench of this Court in L.P.A. No. 786 of 2018 before the Hon'ble Supreme Court by filing S.L.P. being S.L.P. No. 8108 of 2021 but the same has also been dismissed. For ready reference, the order passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court is being referred as under:

"We are not inclined to interfere with the impugned final judgment and order passed by the High Court. The Special Leave Petition is, accordingly, dismissed.

Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of."

8. 6.The reason for filing this contempt case is the action of the Sub-

Divisional Officer, Chas, Bokaro who has passed an order on 24.02.2024. However, it has been submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the due entry of the land has been made in the Register-II.

9. 7.The Sub-Divisional Officer, Chas, Bokaro while passing the order for the purpose of initiating a proceeding under Section 144 of Cr.P.C. has directed the Officer in-charge, Sector-12 to take legal action as also in case of violation of the order passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Chas, Bokaro the same be instituted by way of criminal case before the Chief Judicial Magistrate in view of the power conferred under Section 195 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

10. 8.The Sub-Divisional Officer, Chas, Bokaro has also authorized the Circle Officer, Chas to act in pursuance of the aforesaid direction. For ready reference, the order passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Chas, Bokaro as contained in Letter dated 24.02.2024 is being referred as under:

U;k;ky; ]vuqe.My n.Mkf/kdkjh] pkl ¼cksdkjks½ Hkw&[k.M dk fooj.k ekStk&rsrqfy;k] [kkrk ua0&59] IykWV ua0&450]jdok&74 ,dM+ &pkSgn~nh&%&

mÙkj %& tksfM+;k ukykA nf{k.k %& igkM+ iwjc %& IykWV 479] 482 if"pe %& IykWV ua0&426

ekStk& rsrqfy;k] [kkrk ua0&59] IykWV ua0&426] jdok&29 ,dM+ &pkSgn~nh&%& mÙkj %& tksfM+;k ukykA nf{k.k %& igkM+ iwjc %& IykWV 450 if"pe %& fltqok lhek

dqy jdok&103 ,dM+A vkns"k tcfd eq>s fo"oluh; lw=ksa ls Kkr gqvk fd mijksDr Hkw&[k.M >kj[k.M yksd Hkwfe vfrØe.k vf/kfu;e 2000 ds /kkjk&2 ds mi /kkjk ¼3½ esa ;Fkk ifjHkkf'kr yksd Hkwfe gS] ftlesa dqN yksxksa ds }kjk mDr yksd Hkwfe ij vfrØe.k fd;k tk jgk gS] vkSj tcfd izkIr lwpuk ds vk/kkj ij iqfyl mik/kh{kd] uxj] cksdkjks] vapy vf/kdkjh] pkl] Fkkuk izHkkjh] lsDVj&12 Fkkuk gYdk deZpkjh] gYdk ua0&7 ,oa vapy vehu ds lkFk mijksDr Hkwfe ij LFky fujh{k.k fd;k x;k] ftlesa vapy vehu ,oa gYdk deZpkjh ds }kjk LFky ij izfrosfnr fd;k x;k fd mDr Hkw&[k.M lkfcd [kfr;ku ,oa uD"ks ds vuqlkj xSj vkckn] xSj et:vk [kkl [kkrs dh Hkwfe gS( vkSj tcfd LFkkuh; yksxksa ls iwNrkN ds nkSjku 10 LFkkuh; yksxksa dk fyf[kr c;ku Fkkuk izHkkjh] lsDVj&12 Fkkuk ds }kjk ntZ fd;k x;k] ftlesa mYysf[kr fd;k x;k fd mDr Hkw&[k.M ges"kk ls ljdkjh Hkwfe jgh gS vkSj foxr ,d eghus ls mDr yksd Hkwfe ij vfrØe.k dj fuekZ.k dk;Z fd;k tk jgk gS] vkSj tcfd mDr Hkw&[k.M ij IykWfVax djrs gq, nks IykWV ij fyaVj rd iDdk fuekZ.k fd;k tk pqdk gS] ftldh otg ls LFkkuh; yksxksa esa vkØks"k gS ( vkSj tcfd mDr Hkw&[k.M ij lh0lh0Vh0oh0 dSejs] tks Fkkuk izHkkjh] lsDVj&12 Fkkuk ds }kjk LFky ij tIr fd;k x;k gS] ds tfj;s LFkkuh; yksxksa ds vkokxeu ij fuxjkuh j[kh tk jgh Fkh rkfd yksxksa dks fpfUgr dj muds thou ,oa LokLF; dks [krjk igqapk;k tk lds] vkSj tcfd mDr Hkw&[k.M ij yksxksa ds izo"s k o fuekZ.k dk;Z djus ls "kkafr Hkax ,oa rRdky minzo dh izcy vk"kadk gS] lkFk gh ekuo thou ,oa LokLF; dks [krjk gS( ,rn~ }kjk mijksDr Hkw&[k.M ij Hkk0n0la0 esa ;Fkk ifjHkkf'kr yksd lsod ,oa yksd lsod ds }kjk izkf/kd`r O;fDr rFkk 5 ls vukf/kd xzkeh.kksa ds vfrfjDr O;fDr;ksa dks] n0iz0la0 1973 ds /kkjk 144 ds v/khu iznÙk "kfDr;ksa dk mi;ksx

djrs gq,] izo"s k djus ls fu'ks/k fd;k tkrk gS] lkFk gh fdlh Hkh O;fDr ds }kjk] /kkjk&144 ds v/khu vxys vkns"k rd] ,sls Hkw&[k.M ij fdlh Hkh izdkj dk fuekZ.k dk;Z ij rRdky izHkko ls jksd yxk;k tkrk gSA 2- bl vkns"k ls vlarq'V O;fDr ds }kjk] /kkjk 144 ds mi/kkjk ¼5½ ds v/khu] lefiZr vkosnu ds mijksä /kkjk 144 ds mi/kkjk ¼7½ esa fof/kr izfØ;k ds rgr mDr O;fDr dks] O;fDrxr :Ik ;k vf/koDrk ds ek/;e ls] mifLFkr gksdj bl vkns"k ds f[kykQ dkj.k nf"kZr djus dk vfxze volj iznku fd;k tk,xkA 3- bl vkns"k esa /kkjk&144 ds v/khu tkjh fu'ks/kkKk 02 eghus ls vf/kd le; ds fy, ykxw ugha jgsxkA 4- vapy vf/kdkjh] pkl ,oa Fkkuk izHkkjh] lsDVj&12 Fkkuk dks funsZ"k gS fd mijksDr Hkw&[k.M ds lanHkZ esa LFky ij dM+h fuxjkuh j[ksaxsA bl vkns"k dh vogsyuk n0iz0la0 ds v/khu ,d laKs; vijk/k gSA bl vkns"k dh vogsyuk dh fLFkfr esa Fkkuk izHkkjh] lsDVj&12 Fkkuk n0iz0la0 1973 ds v/khu rRdky fof/klEer~ dk;Zokgh djsaxsA lkFk gh vuqe.My n.Mkf/kdkjh] pkl ds U;k;ky; ds bl vkns"k dh vogsyuk ,oa bl ekeys ls tqM+s vU; vlaKs; vijk/k dh fyf[kr f"kdk;r eq[; U;kf;d n.Mkf/kdkjh ds U;k;ky; esa nk;j djus ds fy, n0iz0la0 1973 dh /kkjk 195 ds v/khu iznÙk "kfDr;ksa dk bLrseky djrs gq, vapy vf/kdkjh] pkl dks izkf/kd`r fd;k tkrk gSA 5- bl ekeys ls tq+Ms+ rF;ksa ,oa lcwrksa dk vuqla/kku djrs gq, Fkkuk izHkkjh] lsDVj&12 Fkkuk vuqe.My n.Mkf/kdkjh ds U;k;ky; dks izfrosfnr djsaxs] lkFk gh laKs; vijk/k dk laKku ysrs gq, eq[; U;kf;d n.Mkf/kdkjh] cksdkjks dks izfrosfnr djsaxsA Fkkuk izHkkjh] lsDVj&12 Fkkuk ls izkIr tk¡p izfrosnu esa mYysf[kr vlaKs; vijk/k dh fyf[kr f"kdk;r bl vkns"k ds ikjk 4 esa izkf/kd`r "kfDr dk bLrseky djrs gq, vapy vf/kdkjh eq[; U;kf;d n.Mkf/kdkjh] cksdkjks ds U;k;ky; esa ntZ djsaxsA 6- vapy vf/kdkjh] pkl mijksDr yksd Hkwfe ij vfrØe.k dh fLFkfr dk LFky tk¡p dj >kj[k.M yksd Hkwfe vfrØe.k vf/kfu;e 2000 ds v/khu dk;Zokgh djrs gq, vuqe.My n.Mkf/kdkjh] pkl ds U;k;ky; dks dk;Zokgh dh izfr ds }kjk izfrosfnr djsaxsA ;g vkns"k fnukad 24-02-24 dks esjs gLrk{kj ,oa U;k;ky; ds eqgj ls fuxZrA

vuqe.My n.Mkf/kdkjh pkl ¼cksdkjks½A

9.The instant contempt case has been filed on the background of the order passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Chas, Bokaro.

10.This Court has called upon the Sub-Divisional Officer, Chas, Bokaro since the show cause was not filed as would appear from

the order dated 24.07.2024. For ready reference, the same is being referred as under:

"The contempt case has been filed under Sections 11 and 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 read with Article 215 of the Constitution of India for alleged non-compliance of the order dated 05.11.2020 in L.P.A. No. 786 of 2018.

It appears that the Co-ordinate Division Bench has issued notice vide order dated 8th May, 2024.

The office note dated 20.07.2024 reflects that notice has been received upon O.P. No.2 & 3.

Mr. Raunak Sahay, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that although he has received the show cause but surprisingly the same is not available on the record.

This Court has also enquired from the system but there is no trace of show cause which means that the show cause has not been filed.

This Court hereby issue notices to the O.P. No.2 and 3 under Rule 393 of the Jharkhand High Court Rules as to why conduct of the opposite parties be not considered the deliberate negligence and disobedience of the order passed by this Court.

Let notice is made returnable on 20.08.2024."

11.From the preceding paragraphs, it is quite evident that the issue of the proceeding initiated under Section 4(h) of the Act, 1950 had been considered and attained its finality up to the level of Hon'ble Apex Court, meaning thereby, when the proceeding under Section 4(h) of the Act, 1950 has been quashed and set aside, it means that there is declaration of the Constitutional Court that the enquiry so initiated under Section 4(h) of the Act, 1950 was not authorized in view of the provision as contained under Section 4(h) of the Act, 1950 due to the specific cut-off date as referred therein as 01.01.1946.

12.This Court, therefore, is of the view that when there is declaration of the Constitutional Court, i.e., this Court and the order passed by this Court has been upheld by the Hon'ble Apex Court, in that circumstances, all these facts had been brought to the notice of the Sub-Divisional Officer, Chas, Bokaro, who in complete defiance of the same has not only entertained the application filed by the Forest Department for the purpose of initiation of a proceeding under the Jharkhand Public

Encroachment Act, 2000 but has also initiated a proceeding under Section 144 of Cr.P.C. and not only that, he has authorized the Circle Officer, Chas to institute a criminal case against the petitioner.

13.The Sub-Divisional Officer, Chas, Bokaro is present physically in the Court and in course of interaction with the Court, has defied the decision dated 24.02.2024 taken by him as has been quoted and referred as above as under paragraphs-4 and 5.

14.This Court, on consideration of the decision so taken by the concerned authority, is prima facie of the view that the conduct of the concerned officer is in defiance of the order passed by this Court upheld by the Hon‟ble Supreme Court and even today, in the Court, he has tried to justify the action instead of tendering apology by advancing his argument that the proceeding which had been initiated under Section 144 of Cr.P.C. by issuance of letter dated 24.02.2024 had already lost its effect after expiry of 60 days.

15.We are not disputing the aforesaid fact but we are concerned with respect to the other part of the direction as has been contained in paragraphs-4 and 5 of the decision so taken by the Sub- Divisional Officer, Chas, Bokaro on 24.02.2024, as quoted and referred above.

16.This Court considered the aforesaid fact and particularly the order which has been issued by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Chas, Bokaro directing the Circle Officer, Chas to institute a criminal case against the petitioner and further the Officer in-charge to institute the criminal case, the same is being considered to be sitting upon the decision taken by this Court upheld by the Hon‟ble Supreme Court.

17.This Court, in view of the aforesaid, is of the view that the show cause filed by the opposite party no.3 is not satisfactory since the opposite party no.3 has wrongly interpreted the purport of the order passed by the learned writ court affirmed by the Division Bench of this Court, as such, the same is hereby, rejected.

18.Accordingly, charge is to be framed against the Sub-Divisional Officer, Chas, Bokaro, namely, Om Prakash Gupta, who is

physically present in the Court in pursuance of the order dated 24.07.2024, whereby and whereunder, notice has already been issued under Rule 393 of the Jharkhand High Court Rules but before framing of the charge, an opportunity is being given to the contemnor, namely, Om Prakash Gupta.

19.In view thereof, let this matter be listed on 03.09.2024 for passing further order.

20.The Deputy Commissioner, Bokaro, namely, Vijaya N. Jadhav, is also physically present in the Court.

21.This Court, considering the fact that the order passed by this Court has been defied by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Chas, Bokaro, as such, is of the view that the Deputy Commissioner, Bokaro is not involved in any way in defiance of the order passed by this Court, as such, the show cause filed by the Deputy Commissioner, Bokaro, is hereby, accepted.

22.Accordingly, the physical appearance of the Deputy Commissioner, Bokaro is hereby, dispensed with."

11. Pursuant thereto, Mr. Om Prakash Gupta, holding the

post of Sub-Divisional Officer, Chas is present physically in

Court and has filed a show cause, in pursuance to order

dated 20th August, 2024, reference of which has given as

above.

12. The issue for initiation of contempt against the officer

concerned arose, would be evident from order dated 20th

August, 2024, that even after the order having passed by the

Division Bench of this Court having been confirmed by the

Hon'ble Supreme Court, concerned officer has passed order

on 24.02.2024 whereby and whereunder the action has been

proposed to be taken against the person who is before the

authority for compliance of the order passed by this Court in

L.P.A. No. 786 of 2018 dated 05.11.2020 having been

confirmed by Hon'ble Apex Court.

13. The Court has quoted order dated 24.02.2024 passed by

Opp. Party No. 3 in order dated 20.08.2024, wherefrom it is

evident in particular from paragraph 4 and 5 that order dated

24.02.2024 was passed in defiance of the order passed by

this Court in intra-court appeal i.e., in LPA No. 786 of 2018

having been confirmed by Hon'ble Apex Court.

14. In view thereof, the show cause filed by Opp. Party No. 2

was not accepted having been found not satisfactory and an

opportunity was granted to Opp. Party No. 3 to file fresh show

cause before framing of charge.

15. Pursuant thereto, a show cause has been filed by Opp.

Party No. 3 on 29.08.2024, wherein it has been stated that

whatever has been written in paragraph 4 and 5 of order

dated 24.02.2024, the same has been withdrawn, as would

be evident from Annexure A dated 29.08.2024. Further,

unconditional and unqualified apology has also been

tendered by the concerned Opp. Party.

16. In view thereof, this Court hereby accepts the show

cause filed on behalf of Opp. Party No. 3 but before parting

with the order this Court observes that the Officer concerned

- 10 -

to be cautious in future in dealing with the order passed by

the Court of law.

17. Accordingly, the instant contempt proceeding is

disposed of.

18. The instant Interlocutory Application has been filed for

impleadment of Divisional Forest Officer, Bokaro as Opposite

Party No. 4 in the present contempt proceeding since during

pendency of the instant contempt case another letter being

Letter No. 828 dated 29.04.2024 has been served upon the

petitioner by the Divisional Forest Officer, Bokaro said to be

in defiance of order dated 05.11.2020 passed in L.P.A. No.

786 of 2016 being confirmed by Hon'ble Apex Court.

19. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that

since the instant contempt case has been disposed of , as

such liberty may be granted to challenge Letter No. 828 dated

29.04.2024 by filing fresh contempt case for alleged

disobedience by the Divisional Forest Officer, Bokaro by

issuing order dated 29.04.2024.

20. Considering the same, the instant Interlocutory

Application is dismissed as not pressed.

21. However, liberty is reserved with the petitioner to search

out remedy available, if the petitioner so wishes with respect

- 11 -

to the issue of issuance of Letter No. 828 dated 29.04.2024

by the Divisional Forest Officer, Bokaro.

22. In consequence thereof, pending Interlocutory

Application stands disposed of.

(Sujit Narayan Prasad, A.C.J.)

(Arun Kumar Rai, J.) Alankar/ A.F.R.

- 12 -