Uttarakhand High Court
CLCON/104/2021 on 5 August, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND
AT NAINITAL
ON THE 5th DAY OF AUGUST, 2021
BEFORE:
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR TIWARI
CONTEMPT PETITION NO. 104 OF 2021
BETWEEN:
Trilok Singh and others .......Petitioner
(By Mr. K.S. Bora and Mr. Mohit Kumar, Advocates)
AND:
Mr. Vineet Tomar ......Respondent
(By Mr. J.S. Bisht, Standing Counsel for the State of
Uttarakhand)
JUDGMENT
Petitioners are residents of Village
Ghaindakhali No.3, Tehsil Poornagiri, Tanakpur,
District Champawat. They filed WPMS No. 181 of
2019 seeking the following reliefs:-
(i) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of
certiorari quashing/setting aside the ex-parte
survey report dated 15.04.2018 made by
respondent no. 5 (Annexure No. 7)
(ii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of
mandamus directing the Respondents to make
a joint survey of the land of the petitioners
together under both Forest and Revenue
Departments according to the circular dated
31.08.2012 and order dated 21.02.2018
passed by respondent no. 1 and only then take
the decision on the matter.
(iii) Issue a writ, order or direction restraining the
respondent forest department from interfering
in the land of the bhumidhari of the
petitioners.
2. It was the contention of the petitioners
before the writ court that they are residing in a
revenue village, however, the forest authorities are
treating the said village to be situate within forest
area without there being any notification to that
effect. The said writ petition was disposed of with a
direction to District Magistrate, Champawat to make a
formal request to Director General, Survey of India to
nominate a team of experts for the purpose of survey
of the village and necessary direction was also issued
to the Director General, Survey of India.
3. In this contempt petition, it is alleged that
the direction issued by writ court in WPMS No. 181 of
2019 has not been complied with.
4. A compliance affidavit has been filed by Mr.
Vineet Tomar, District Magistrate, Champawat. In
para-6 of the said affidavit, it has been stated that
the Director, Uttarakhand and West U.P, Geology
Spatial Data Center, Dehradun, Survey of India has
informed vide letter dated 07.04.2021 that a
Surveyor was sent, who visited the spot for
inspection, but found that in the absence of boundary
pillars, survey of the area is not possible.
5. Learned Standing Counsel submits that the
direction issued by writ court has been complied with,
inasmuch as, pursuant to the request made by
District Magistrate, a Surveyor was sent by Survey of
India, who opined that, in the absence of boundary
pillars, survey is not possible. Thus, according to him,
order passed by writ court stands complied with.
6. Shri K.S. Bora, learned counsel for the
petitioner, on the other hand, submits that
compliance of the order has not been made and the
matter remains where it was, before filing of the writ
petition. He further submits that boundary pillars
exist on the spot, but the Surveyor from Survey of
India has wrongly stated that there are no boundary
pillars. He further submits that neither petitioners nor
other villagers were informed about the visit of
Surveyor, or else they would have shown the
boundary pillars to the Surveyor. He further submits
that when there was a direction to the Survey of India
to get the land surveyed, then the matter could not
have been closed based on a solitary report issued by
a Surveyor that survey is not possible. He further
submits that today there are other scientific methods
of survey available with Survey of India, therefore,
Survey could not have been refused only on the
ground that there are no boundary pillars.
7. Be that as it may, the fact remains that
District Magistrate had requested the Survey of India
to make survey of the village and the competent
authority in Survey of India had sent some official to
the village. The dispute whether the report submitted
by the official, who was sent for survey, is
reliable/correct and can be relied upon or not, cannot
be resolved under contempt jurisdiction.
8. In such view of the matter, this Court is of
the considered opinion that since substantial
compliance of the order is made, therefore it would
be unjust to proceed against the respondents under
Contempt of Courts Act, 1972.
9. Accordingly, the contempt petition is
closed. Contempt notice issued to the respondent is
hereby discharged. However, petitioners shall be at
liberty to file writ petition under Article 226 of
Constitution of India for redressal of their grievances,
if any.
(MANOJ KUMAR TIWARI, J.)
Nahid
