Mohan Ram vs Shri Rakesh Kumar And Others
2022 Latest Caselaw 1096 Raj/2

      HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
                  BENCH AT JAIPUR

             S.B. Civil Contempt Petition No. 687/2015

Mohan Ram S/o Shri Sada Ram Jat, R/o Village Chelasi, Tehsil
And District Sikar Raj
                                                                  ----Petitioner
                                  Versus
1.     Shri Rakesh Kumar, Sub Divisional Officer, Sikar Raj
2.     Shri Mangal Chand Saini, Tehsildar, Tehsil Sikar Raj
3.     Shri Rajendra Nehra Girdawar Halka Dujod, Tehsil Office
       Sikar, District Sikar Raj
4.     Ms. Priyanka, Pawari Halka Chandpura, Tehsil Office Sikar,
       District Sikar Raj
5.     Shri Anand Yadav, Incharge, Police Station Sadar, Sikar
       Raj
6.     Shri Sharvan Kumar S/o Dana Ram, R/o Village Chelasi,
       Tehsil And District Sikar Raj
7.     Smt. Shnati Devi W/o Shri Nemi Chand, R/o Village
       Chelasi, Tehsil And District Sikar Raj
8.     Shri Vijay S/o Shri Nemi Chand, R/o Village Chelasi, Tehsil
       And District Sikar Raj
9.     Shri Mani Ram S/o Shri Nemi Chand, R/o Village Chelasi,
       Tehsil And District Sikar Raj
10.    Ku. Savitri D/o Shri Nemi Chand, R/o Village Chelasi,
       Tehsil And District Sikar Raj
11.    Ku. Manni Devid D/o Shri Nemi Chand, R/o Village
       Chelasi, Tehsil And District Sikar Raj
12.    Ram Kumar S/o Shri Dana Ram, R/o Village Chelasi,
       Tehsil And District Sikar Raj
13.    Sukhdeva Ram S/o Shir Dana Ram, R/o Village Chelasi,
       Tehsil And District Sikar Raj
14.    Ramdeva Ram S/o Shri Dana Ram, R/o Village Chelasi,
       Tehsil And District Sikar Raj
                                                               ----Respondents

Connected With S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5697/2006 Mohan Ram

(2 of 8) [CCP-687/2015]

----Petitioner Versus B O R, Ajmer And Ors

----Respondent

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Dharam Veer Tholia with Mr. Himanshu Tholia, through VC For Respondent(s) : Mr. M.M. Ranjan, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Rohan Agarwal, through VC Mr. Akshay Sharma, AGC, through VC Mr.Shailesh Kumar Panwar,through VC Mr. Amin Ali, through VC

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDESH BANSAL

Judgment

Reserved on : 25/01/2022 Pronounced on : 28th January, 2022

In S.B. Civil Contempt Petition No. 687/2015:-

1. This contempt petition has been filed alleging non-

compliance of ex parte stay order dated 21.08.2006 passed in

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.5697/2006 filed by petitioner. The

relevant facts as culled out from the record are that there is a

dispute of 'Khatedari Rights' between the private parties in

relation to land of Khasra Nos.54, 321 & 327 total ad-measuring

3.67 hectare at Village Nani Tehsil and District, Sikar.

2. It appears that private respondents-plaintiffs filed a revenue

suit for seeking declaration of their 'khatedari rights' over

aforesaid lands which was initially dismissed vide judgment dated

28.02.1997 however, they preferred appeal before the Revenue

Appellate Authority and appeal was allowed vide judgment dated

22.03.1997 and thereby 'khatedari rights' of these lands were

declared in favour of respondents. The judgment dated

22.03.1997 was challenged before the Board of Revenue by way

(3 of 8) [CCP-687/2015]

of filing appeal but Board of Revenue dismissed the appeal on the

ground of limitation vide order dated 06.07.2006. Against the

order dated 06.07.2006 passed by Board of Revenue, the

petitioner has preferred the writ petition bearing S. B. Civil Writ

Petition No.5697/2006 which is pending before this Court for

decision and during pendency of writ petition, the interim stay

order dated 21.08.2006 was passed. Learned counsel for

petitioner submits that respondents were well aware about the

pendency of writ petition as well as stay order dated 21.08.2006

passed in writ petition, however, private respondents-Sharvan

Kumar and others tried to alienate the agricultural land in

question. He alleges that the concerned Revenue Authorities are

also having connivance with private respondents and they filled up

the mutation No.1519 dated 13.08.2010, mutation No.1734 dated

22.02.2012, mutation No.1755 dated 13.04.2012 and mutation

No.1802 dated 05.10.2012 in revenue record during operation of

stay order. The part of land in question has been mortgaged with

Cooperative Bank. Therefore, all the respondents have violated

the stay order dated 21.08.2006. It has further been argued that

private respondents have divided the lands in question in

parts/plots and have started raising construction, for which the

petitioner filed application dated 06.05.2015 before the concerned

Police Station, Sadar, District, Sikar. The representation dated

07.05.2015 was also made before SDO, Sikar. Petitioner submits

that concerned Revenue Authorities, for the formality sake visited

the site and prepared site report dated 13.05.2015 wherein a

house under construction was found at site and private

respondents were informed about stay order dated 21.08.2006

(Annexure 9) thus, counsel for the petitioner submits that all the

(4 of 8) [CCP-687/2015]

respondents are guilty for violating the stay order dated

21.08.2006 and be punished for contempt of court.

3. Respondents-authorities as well as private respondents have

filed separate reply to contempt petition denying the deliberate

and willful disobedience of stay order dated 21.08.2006 on their

part. The respondent No.1 have filed reply stating that when the

complaint of petitioner was received, the site was inspected and

site report was prepared and private persons were informed about

stay order and the construction work was stopped. The site report

dated 13.05.2015 has also been placed on record as Annexure-

R/4 which is the same as Annexure-9 with the contempt petition.

Another site report dated 02.06.2015 has been placed on record

as Annexure-R/5. Respondent Nos.2 to 4 have filed separate reply

that the stay order dated 21.08.2006 was not placed on record by

the petitioner and there is no note of stay order in the revenue

record. It is contended that there is inter se dispute between

private parties and they have not violated the stay order

knowingly and willfully. The private respondents have filed their

replies contending that they were declared Khatedar of the land in

question and the land have already been mutated in their name

pursuant to judgment dated 22.03.1997 passed by Revenue

Appellate Authority and the name of petitioner was deleted from

the revenue record before passing the stay order. Thereafter, legal

representatives of late Shri Dana Ram filed a partition suit which

was decreed and in furtherance to such decree of partition, the

mutation were entered into. It has been denied that land in

question has been alienated by private respondents. It has been

alleged that petitioner was never in possession of the land in

question and in fact late Shri. Dana Ram was in real possession

(5 of 8) [CCP-687/2015]

whose residential house was situated since 1995 and electric

connections were also available. The bills of electricity for the year

1995 have been placed on record. According to private

respondents, they were already having possession over the lands

in question and their houses were constructed wherein they were

residing and they have not raised any new construction. It has

further been alleged that the stay order dated 21.08.2006 was

passed in ex parte and the same was never communicated to

private respondents. Although, private respondents have filed a

separate reply, however all the replies are containing the same

facts.

4. During the course of present proceedings of contempt, this

Court passed an order dated 23.03.2018 and directed the Sub

Divisional Officer and Tehsildar, Sikar to demolish all the

constructions made over the property in question, subsequent to

the status quo order dated 21.08.2006, placing reliance on site

report dated 02.06.2015.

5. Although, the review application was filed seeking review of

order dated 23.03.2018 however, the same was dismissed vide

order dated 11.04.2018. In compliance thereof, the additional

construction made as per Fard Mauka report dated 02.06.2015

was demolished and the respondents have placed on record the

'Fard Mauka Karyavahi' dated 12.04.2018. The proceedings dated

12.04.2018 commenced in furtherance to the order dated

23.03.2018 has been placed on record along with few photographs

supported by affidavit by the concerned Sub Divisional Officer,

Sikar as Annexure-AA/1. This Court again vide order dated

09.09.2020 directed the respondent-authorities to file latest status

report with regard to the construction on the disputed land and

(6 of 8) [CCP-687/2015]

revenue record thereof. The site report dated 17.08.2020 along

with the latest copies of Zamabandi have been placed on record.

As per the latest status report, no new construction has been

found at site but the old constructed residential houses are there

and on the remaining land, various type of crops are standing. In

the revenue record of Zamabandi the note of stay order has been

marked. Further for cancellation of the subsequent mutation

entries No.1519 dated 13.08.2010, mutation No.1734 dated

22.02.2012, mutation No.1755 dated 13.04.2012 and mutation

No.1802 dated 05.10.2012, the Tehsildar has filed application for

reference under Section 82 of the Land Revenue Act, 1956 before

the District Collector, Sikar which is pending.

6. Heard counsels for both parties and perused the material

available on record.

7. It is not in dispute that vide judgment dated 22.03.1997

passed by Revenue Appellate Authority, private respondents were

declared as Khatedar of the lands in question and the judgment

dated 22.03.1997 has been sustained by Board of Revenue and

under challenge before this Court in S.B. Civil Writ Petition

No.5697/2006. Thus, the rights of petitioner, as far as in relation

to the lands in question are concerned, are yet to be adjudicated

finally in the writ petition. As far as stay order dated 21.08.2006 is

concerned, the same is still operating and in force. The issue is as

to whether the stay order dated 21.08.2006 has been violated by

respondents that too deliberately and willfully? The respondents-

authorities have submitted that as soon as this stay order was

brought to their notice, they have inspected the site and stopped

the construction after apprising the private respondents about the

stay order. The site inspection reports prepared by the

(7 of 8) [CCP-687/2015]

respondents-authorities are available on record. As far as

subsequent mutation entries are concerned, the reference petition

for cancellation of such subsequent mutation entries have also

been preferred which is yet pending. The private respondents

have submitted that the stay order dated 21.08.2006 was passed

ex parte and was never brought to their knowledge however, after

having knowledge of said stay order, no fresh construction have

been made. The private respondents contends that their

residential houses were already situated over the lands in question

and petitioner was out of possession. The latest site report

produced on record goes to show that there is no new

construction and the houses located on the site are old and crop is

standing. Whatever new construction was raised, has already been

removed in compliance of order dated 23.03.2018 passed during

the course of this contempt proceedings. In the present case, it is

clear that there is a serious dispute between the private parties

about their 'khadedari rights' and possession over the lands in

question. The Court has to enter into arena of such disputed question

of facts aspect and niceties to observe, as to whether the conduct of

respondents is tantamounts to willful and deliberate non-compliance of

interim stay order dated 09.08.2005? In the opinion of this Court, in the

given facts of case where dispute of possession and khatedari rights

between the parties is yet to be adjudicated finally in writ petition, it is

not appropriate to examine and adjudicate such disputed factual issues

in the present contempt proceeding.

8. It is settled proposition of law that nature of contempt

proceedings is akin to quasi criminal as far as standard of proof is

concerned. The element of willingness is an indispensable requirement

to bring home the charges of contempt within the meaning of Court of

(8 of 8) [CCP-687/2015]

Contempt Act. The powers under the Court of Contempt Act should be

exercised with utmost care and caution and that too rather sparingly

and in the larger interest of the society and for proper administration of

the justice delivery system in the country. Exercise of power within

meaning of Act of 1971 shall thus be a rarity and that too in a matter

on which there exists no doubt as regards the initiation of the action

being bona fide.

9. In backdrop of facts of present case and in the light of discussion

made above, this Court is not inclined to take cognizance of contempt of

court against respondents. More so when the protection provided to

petitioner vide interim order dated 09.08.2005 is operative and

available to petitioner and rights of parties to possession and khatedari

over the land in question as yet to be finally adjudicated in the pending

writ petition.

10. Therefore, this contempt petition is dismissed at this stage with

the observation made above. Notices of contempt petition stand

discharged.

In S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5697/2006:-

The writ petition be listed before the Roaster Bench.

(SUDESH BANSAL),J

SAURABH/

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)