Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur

Chetna Devi vs Haritima (2023:Rj-Jd:28653) on 11 September, 2023

Bench: Nupur Bhati

[2023:RJ-JD:28653]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 17562/2018

Chetna Devi W/o Shri Pradeep Kumar, Aged About 34 Years, S/o Shri Raj Kumar, By Caste Agarwal Raniyawala, Resident Of Ward No. 25, Near Agrasen Dharamshala, Nohar, District Hanumangarh Through Power Of Attorney Holder Rajkumar S/o Shri Dwarka Prasad, Aged About 62 Years, By Caste Agarwal, Resident Of Ward No. 25, Near Agrasen Dharamshala, Nohar District Hanumangarh (Raj.). (Father-In-Law Of The Petitioner)

----Petitioner Versus

1. Haritima, Addl. District Collector, Nohar, District Hanumangarh (Raj.).

2. Civil Judge, Nohar, District Hanumangarh (Raj.).

                                                                   ----Respondents


For Petitioner(s)            :    Mr. Kishan Bansal
For Respondent(s)            :



               HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE NUPUR BHATI

                                       Order

11/09/2023

1. The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner

under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India with the

following prayers:-

"It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that the writ petition of the petitioner may kindly be accepted and allowed and by an appropriate order, writ or direction:-

(i) the impugned dated 16.08.2018 (Annex.4) and 12.09.2018 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Nohar, District Hanumangarh may be quashed and set aside.

(ii) the application (Annex.-1) filed by the petitioner may kindly be accepted and allowed and learned Civil

[2023:RJ-JD:28653] (2 of 9) [CW-17562/2018]

Judge, Nohar may be directed to refer the matter to Hon'ble High Court for initial Contempt proceedings against the respondent as per law.

(iii) Any other order or direction which may be found favourable to the petitioners may kindly also be passed.

2. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner has filed an

application under Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 (for short 'the Act

of 1971") before the learned Civil Judge, Nohar, District

Hanumangarh for punishing respondent No.1- Dr. Haritima, Addl.

District Collector, Nohar, District Hanumangarh under Sections 10,

12 and 16 of the Act of 1971 alleging that the respondent has

passed the order dated 31.07.2018 (Annex.-3) and committed

Contempt of the judgment and decree dated 05.11.2016 (Annex.-

2) passed by the Civil Judge, Nohar in Civil Regular Suit

No.124/2012 (Chetna Devi Vs. State of Rajasthan) while treating

it to be passed by an incompetent court and with the prayer that

the matter may be referred to the Hon'ble High Court in order to

initiate the contempt proceeding against the respondent No.1.

3. On 16.05.1963, Tara Singh S/o Nand Singh S/o Atar Singh

B/c Jat Sikh, resident of Village Bhuna Posti Tehsil and District

Fatehabad (Hariyana) have sold their land through registered sale

deed and from the amount of the consideration of the land

purchased 4 Bigha land out of the land situated at Chak No.1 NHR

Stone No.39/438, Kila No.13, 14, 17, 18, 19, 23 and 10 Bigha 14

Biswa of land situated at Sone No.309/439 Kila No.1, 2 and 3 from

its Khatedar namely Nanu S/o Musa and Gani Mohd. S/o Fatu,

resident of Nohar and in the year 1963, the 80 share land of co-

cultivators has been mutated in the name of Tara Singh.

[2023:RJ-JD:28653] (3 of 9) [CW-17562/2018]

4. Thereafter, Fateh Mohd. S/o Noor Mohd. Leelgar R/o Nohar

filed an appeal before the Additional District Collector and stated

that Tara Singh has died without leaving behind any issue on

which, the Additional District Collector, Nohar passed the order of

seize (kurki) and the same was sent to the Tehsildar Nohar with a

direction that his land may be mutated as Govt. Land. Tara Singh

filed an appeal against the abovementioned order before the

Divsional Commissioner, which was dismissed and against that

order, a revision petition came to be filed before the learned Board

of Revenue, who quashed the orders of courts below and above 4

Bigha of land has been considered in the name of Tara Singh S/o

Nand Singh and the review petition also came to be dismissed but

the Board of Revenue place a note that the Tehsildar Nohar may

conduct factual enquiry in this case.

5. That in the meantime the petitioner has purchased the

aforementioned 4 Bigha of land from Tara Singh through a

registered sale deed dated 13.03.2006 and after submitting the

stamp duty, the same has been got registered on 31.03.2009 in

favour of the petitioner. At the time of execution of sale deed, Tara

Singh started residing at Anoopgarh as in the registered sale

deed, his address was mentioned as resident of Anoopgarh,

District Sri Ganganagar. The petitioner submitted an application

before the Tehsildar, Nohar for mutation of the abovementioned 4

Bigha of land in her name on which, the Tehsildar (Revenue)

passed an order that there are two persons namely Tara Singh,

and therefore, enquiry is not possible, so, the case may be filed in

the competitive civil court on which, the petitioner filed a suit

before the learned Civil Judge, Nohar, District Hanumangarh

[2023:RJ-JD:28653] (4 of 9) [CW-17562/2018]

against State of Rajasthan, Tehsildar (Revenue), Nohar and Tara

Singh S/o Nand Singh, Resident of Bhuna Posti, District Fatehabad

at present resident of Chak 10A Dhani, Tehsil Anoopgarh, District

Sri Ganganagar, and prayed that Tara Singh S/o Nand Singh R/o

Bhuna Posti Tehsil & District Fatehabad and Tara Singh S/o Nand

Singh S/o Atar Singh at present Resident of Chak 10-A Dhani

Tehsil Anoopgarh, District Sri Ganganagar, both are the same

person, who has registered the sale deed in favour of the

petitioner regarding aforementioned 4 Bigha of land. The suit was

registered as Regular Civil Suit No. 124/2012 (CIS No. 411/2014)

Chetna Devi Vs. State of Rajasthan.

6. Learned Civil Judge, Nohar, District Hanumangarh, after

hearing both the parties and after perusal of the material available

on record has decreed the suit filed by the petitioner vide

judgment and decree dated 05.11.2016 (Annex.-2) declared that

one Tara Singh S/o Nand Singh is alive and the signature and

thumb impression on the registered document No.2006000823

dated 13.03.2006 and sale deed Sr.No.282 dated 16.05.1963 are

of one person.

7. The application filed by the petitioner for mutation of the

land in question measuring 4 bighas in the revenue record in the

name of the petitioner, before the Tehsildar (Revenue), was

allowed vide order dated 27.05.2015 but, the Sub-Divisional

Officer, Nohar filed an appeal against the order dated 27.05.2015

before the learned Additional District Collector, who has passed

order dated 31.07.2018 (Annex.-3) allowing the appeal filed by

the Sub-Divisional Officer, Nohar for quashing the order dated

[2023:RJ-JD:28653] (5 of 9) [CW-17562/2018]

27.05.2015 and passed the order for appointment of receiver in

regard to land in question.

8. Learned Civil Judge, Nohar dismissed the application filed by

the petitioner on 16.08.2018 (Annex.-4) against which, the

petitioner preferred review petition before the learned Civil Judge,

Nohar, District Hanumangarh which was also dismissed vide order

dated 12.09.2018 (Annex.-6).

9. The petitioner being aggrieved by the orders dated

16.08.2018 (Annex.-4) and 12.09.2018 (Annex.-6) has preferred

this writ petition.

10. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the

respondent No.2 has denied to consider the judgment dated

05.11.2016 (Annex.-2) passed by learned Civil Judge, Nohar

District Hanumangarh and denied to consider it as competent

court and adversely commented on the judgment passed by the

learned Civil Judge and also pointed out the deficiencies in the

order passed by Civil Judge wherein it was alleged that :-

"जहां तक सिविल न्यायालय के निर्णय का प्रश्न है तो सिविल न्यायालय के निर्णय न्यायाल के निर्णय के विरुद्ध अपील माननीय अपर जिला एवं सेशन न्यायाधीश नोहर के न्यायालय में विचाराधीन है । यदि न्यायालय हाजा के निर्णय वर्ष 2001 में दिये गये निर्देशों की पालना की जाती तो आज यह स्थिति पैदा नहीं होती और ना ही इस भूमि का वैयनामा निष्पादित होता। यहा ये प्रश्न भी महत्वपू र्ण है कि तथाकथित तारासिंह पुत्र नंदसिंह ने जिस भूमि का बैधनामा करवाया है क्या वह उस भूमि का सही रूप से मालिक था? मृतक नंदसिंह का पुत्र तारासिंह असली कौन है इसके संबंध में एक से अधिक व्यक्तियों ने दावा किया है इसलिए यह एक गं भीर प्रश्न है कि इनमें से तारासिंह पुत्र नंदसिंह कौन है । इसी के संबंध में माननीय उच्च न्यायाल जोधपुर ने निर्णय दिनां क 26/05/2014 में जां च बाबत निर्देश तहसीलदार को दिए थे। यहां यह भी महत्वपू र्ण है कि इन प्रश्नों का निर्णय सक्षम न्यायालय द्वारा ही किया जा सकता है । जब तक सक्षम न्यायालय द्वारा नंदसिंह के असल पु त्र होने का दावा करने वाले व्यक्ति तारासिंह द्वारा सक्षम न्यायालय से उत्तराधिकार प्रमाण पत्र जारी नहीं करवा लिया जाता तब तक किसी भी व्यक्ति को कानूनी रूप से वैध वारिस अर्थात तारासिंह पुत्र नंदसिंह नहीं माना जा सकता।

II.अतः अपील अपीलॉट स्वीकार की जाकर निर्णय तहसीलदार दिनां क 27/05/2015 को अपास्त किया जाता है व तहसीलदार को विवादित भुमि चक 1 एनएचआर के प.नं. 309/438 के किला नं. 13, 14, 17, 18, 19, 22, 23 व प.नं. 309/409 की किला नं . 1, 2, 3 कुल 10 बीघा 14 बिस्वा में से 4 बीघा कृषि भूमि पर रिसीवर नियुक्त किया जाता है एवं आदे श दिया जाता है कि यदि नंदसिंह का असल पुत्र तारासिंह होने की तथाकथित घोषणा करने वाला व्यक्ति सक्षम न्यायालय से उत्तराधिकारी प्रमाण पत्र प्राप्त करके सक्षम राजस्व अधिकारी तहसीलदार के समक्ष पेश करे तो उक्त प्रमाण पत्र के आधार पर आगामी कार्यवाही की जावे असली तारासिंह पुत्र नंदसिंह यदि लावारिस फौत हो

[2023:RJ-JD:28653] (6 of 9) [CW-17562/2018]

गया हो तो ESCHEAT ACT के तहत आगामी कार्यवाही सम्पादित की जावे , तब तक भूमि रिसीवरी में रहे गी'

11. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that on account of

the fact that the respondent is treating the learned court below as

an incompetent court for passing the order dated 05.11.2016

(Annexure-1), thus, his act falls under the definition of Contempt

of Court and thus the application filed by the petitioner ought to

have been allowed. He also submits that the learned court below

has passed a non-speaking order without giving any findings as to

how the contempt is not made out against the respondent and

thus the order deserves to be quashed and set aside.

12. Learned counsel for the petitioner also submits that the

petitioner filed a review petition stating therein that the court

below may refer the case to the High Court under Section 15(2) of

the Contempt of Court Act, 1971, the judgment dated 16.08.2018

(Annex.-4), lacks proper application of mind but the learned Court

below without considering the aforementioned provisions of law,

has passed the order dated 12.09.2018 (Annexure-6).

13. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as perused

the material available on record.

14. The petitioner filed the suit before the learned Civil Judge,

Nohar with the following prayer:-

"fd okn oknhuh fo:) izfroknhx.k bl vk"; dk fMdzh fd;k tkdj ?kks'k.kk dh tkos fd rkjkflag iq= uUnflag tkfr tVfl[k fuoklh Hkquk rglhy o ftyk Qrsgkckn iqjkuk ftyk fglkj (gfj;k.kk) o rkjkflag iq= uUnflag iq= vrjflag tkfr tVfl[k gkt fuokl pd 10, <k.kh rglhy vuwix< ftyk Jhxaxkuxj ,d gh O;fDr gS vkSj oknhuh dks pd ua- 1 ,u-,p-vkj- dh iRFkj uEcj 309/438 ds fdyk ua- 13] 14] 17] 18] 19] 22] 23 o iRFkj ua- 309/439 dh fdyk ua- 1] 2 o 3 dh dqy 10 ch?kk 14 fcLok d`f'k Hkwfe dks fodz; djds mlds i{k esa fodz; i= fu'ikfnr dj iathd`r djokus okyk ogh rkjkflag gS] vU; dksbZ ugha gS vkSj mDr rkjkflag vkt ds fnu Hkh thfor gSA"

[2023:RJ-JD:28653] (7 of 9) [CW-17562/2018]

The Court below, vide judgment and decree dated

05.11.2016, decreed the suit and passed the following order:-

"vr% okn okfn;k fo:) izfroknhx.k Lohdkj fd;k tkdj bl vk"; dh ?kks'k.kkRed fMdzh ikfjr dh tkrh gS fd rkjkflaag oYn uUnflag tkfr tVfl[k] fuoklh uksgj gky pd 10,] rglhy vuwix<] ftyk Jhxaxkuxj thfor gS rFkk jftLVMZ MkdksesaV la[;k 2006000823 fnukafdr 13-03-2006 ,oa lsy Mhy dze la[;k 282 fnukafdr 16-05- 1963 ij gLrk{kj o vxwaBk fu"kkuh ,d gh O;fDr ds gSA mDr nksuks lsy MhYl ij of.kZr rkjkflaag iq= uUnflag tkfr tVfl[k] fuoklh Hkwuk rglhy o ftyk Qrsgkckn (gfj;k.kk) ,oa rkjkflag iq= uUnflag iq= vrjflag tkfr tVfl[k] gky fuoklh pd 10,] <k.kh rglhy vuwix<] ftyk Jhxaxkuxj ,d gh O;fDr gSA [kpkZ i{kdkjku viuk&viuk ogu djsaxsA rnuqlkj fMdzh ipkZ ewfrZc gksA"

15. The Tehsildar, vide order dated 27.05.2015, allowed the

application filed by the petitioner for mutating the land in her

name, against which the SDO, Nohar preferred an appeal before

the Additional District Collector, Nohar and prayed as under:-

"vr% vihy izLrqr dj fuosnu gS fd rglhynkj ds fu.kZ; fnukad 27-05-2015 fujLr fd;k tkdj fu.kZ; dh vuqikyuk esa izkFkhZ;k psruk nsoh ds gd esa bardky vkns"k [kkfjt dj jktLo fjdkMZ esa ;g Hkwfe jktdh; Hkwfe ntZ djus dk vkns"k ikfjr fd;k tkosA "

The Additional District Collector, Nohar, vide order dated

31.07.2018, allowed the appeal and passed the following order:-

"vr% vihy vihykaV Lohdkj dh tkdj fu.kZ; rglhynkj fnukad 27- 05-2015 vikLr fd;k tkrk gS o rglhynkj dks fookfnr Hkwfe pd 1 ,u,pvkj ds i-u- 309/438 ds fdyk ua- 13] 14] 17] 18] 19] 22] 23 o i-u- 309/439 dh fdyk ua- 1] 2] 3 dqy 10 ch?kk 14 fcLok esa ls 4 ch?kk d`f'k Hkwfe ij fjlhoj fu;qDr fd;k tkrk gS ,oa vkns"k fn;k tkrk gS fd ;fn uanflag dk vly iq= rkjkflag gksus dh rFkkdfFkr ? kks'k.kk djus okyk O;fDr l{ke U;k;ky; ls mrjkf/kdkjh izek.k izkIr djds l{ke jktLo vf/kdkjh rglhynkj ds le{k is"k djs rks mDr izek.k i= ds vk/kkj ij vkxkeh dk;Zokgh dh tkosA vlyh rkjkflag iq= uanflag ;fn ykokfjl QkSr gks x;k gks rks ESCHEAT ACT ds rgr vkxkeh dk;Zokgh lEikfnr dh tkos] rc rd Hkwfe fjlhojh esa jgsxhA"

[2023:RJ-JD:28653] (8 of 9) [CW-17562/2018]

16. From the perusal of the above, this Court finds that the

Additional District Collector, has nowhere flouted the order of the

Civil Judge, Nohar.

17. This Court also finds that the learned Civil Judge, Nohar,

District Hanumangarh, was perfectly justified in passing the orders

dated 16.08.2018 (Annex.-4) and 12.09.2018 (Annex.-6), while

keeping in mind the provisions of Section 15(2) of the Contempt

of Court Act, 1971 and dismissing the application of the petitioner

for initiating the contempt proceedings against the person

concerned. The said provision is reproduced hereinbelow for the

sake of ready reference:-

"Section 15(2)- In the case of any criminal contempt of a subordinate court, the High Court may take action on a reference made to it by the subordinate court or on a motion made by the Advocate-General or, in relation to a Union territory, by such Law Officer as the Central Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, specify in this behalf."

18. The Court below also, while considering the principle of law,

did not find prima-facie ground to initiate any proceedings on the

application submitted by the petitioner, which does not call for any

interference by this Court.

19. A criminal contempt, like most criminal actions, is primarily a

matter between the Court and the contemner and not a matter

primarily between a citizen and the contemner. A contempt

committed by the contemner affects more the majesty of law and

the dignity of a Court than a citizen who is not affected by it. At

best, he can bring the matter to the notice of the Court and leave

it there. That appears to be the reason why a restraint has been

[2023:RJ-JD:28653] (9 of 9) [CW-17562/2018]