Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2001 DIGILAW 1298 (PNJ)

Dera Bhai Samer Singh v. G. S. Ghuman

2001-11-21

BAKHSHISH KAUR

body2001
Judgment Bakhshish Kaur, J. 1. This is a petition under Sections 10 and 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act in (in short `the Act) with a prayer that Shri Ghuman Singh, Land Acquisition Collector-respondent be punished for intentionally deliberately and wilfully disobeying and disregarding the order dated 24.6.2000 passed by this Court in Civil Writ Petition No. 4441 of 2000, initiating contempt. 2. Dera Baba Samer Singh is stated to be a historical and religious place situated in Village Sohana, Tehsil Kharar District Ropar (Punjab). Baba Gurdev Singh-respondent No. 2 is mohatmim of the Dera Baba Samer Singh (hereinafter referred as `the Dera). He is managing and looking after various functions of the Dera. 3. Pursuant to the Notification issued and published under Sections 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter referred to as `the Act), the land of the Dera was acquired and the Land Acquisition Collector gave the award on 24th February, 1995. As the compensation in respect of the acquired land was not paid to the petitioner, therefore, a Civil Writ Petition No. 4441 of 2000 was filed. It was disposed of on 26.4.2000 by this Court. In compliance of the order, the respondent had prepared a voucher and handed over the same to the petitioner, but later on payment of the voucher was stopped. It is alleged the payment was stopped for extraneous reasons. The respondent has intentionally, deliberately and wilfully disobeyed the order passed by this Court. 4. The respondent in his reply in the form of affidavit, has raised certain preliminary objections that at the time when the compensation was being awarded, none had appeared on behalf of the Dera to collect the compensation. Accordingly, the amount of compensation was deposited in the Revenue Account in the Treasury. At that time, civil dispute was pending between the alleged Mohatmim of the Dera and panchayat of village Sohana. Details of the suit and orders passed thereon find mention in the order passed by the answering respondent on 10th July, 2000 whereby the matter was decided to be referred under Section 31(2) of the Act to the District Judge. Since there was a serious dispute with regard to the entitlement to receive the compensation, therefore, that the payment in favour of the petitioner was stopped. Since there was a serious dispute with regard to the entitlement to receive the compensation, therefore, that the payment in favour of the petitioner was stopped. On merits, the respondent has given the details of the document and the circumstances on the basis of which the matter to the District Judge under Section 31(2) was referred. 5. I have heard Shri Arun Nehra, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri Arun Palli, learned counsel for the respondent. 6. The order dated 26.4.2000 passed in CWP No. 4441 of 2000 reads as follows :- "After arguing for some time, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he is confining his prayer only to the fact that the compensation payable to the petitioner be paid to him within a reasonable time. We accordingly direct that compensation, if due to the petitioner, shall be paid to him within two months from the date that a certified copy of this order is produced before the authority concerned. This writ petition is disposed of with the above observations. Order dasti." (Emphasis supplied). 7. The grievance of the petitioner is that the directions of the Court as aforesaid are very clear that the compensation due to the petitioner shall be paid to him within a stipulated time. Pursuant thereto, voucher was prepared. Thereafter the respondent had no authority to withhold the payment. Secondly, the respondent was not competent to refer the matter to the District Judge under Section 31(2) of the Act. The passing of the order amounts to clear violation of the order passed by this Court In CWP No. 4441 of 2000. 8. From the averments contained in the petition and the written statement as well as the documents brought on record, one thing is clear that litigation between the Gram Panchayat Sohana and the Dera had been going on. Annexure P-1 is the order dated March 10, 1997 passed in civil suit No. 103 of 1995. 9. The Gram Panchayat, Village Sohana filed a suit for permanent injunction restraining Baba Gurdev Singh, the so-called mohatmim of the Dera from withdrawing the amount of compensation (Baba Gurdev Singh was arrayed as respondent No. 2 in the civil suit). It was prayed that the Land Acquisition Collector be restrained from disbursing the amount in his favour. Since there was non-compliance of the mandatory provisions of Order 7 Rule 1 CPC, the plaint was rejected. It was prayed that the Land Acquisition Collector be restrained from disbursing the amount in his favour. Since there was non-compliance of the mandatory provisions of Order 7 Rule 1 CPC, the plaint was rejected. 10. Earlier to this, mutation No. 12373 sanctioned by Assistant Collector, Ist Class, Kharar on 10.5.1996 in favour of Baba Gurdev Singh was challenged by Sarwan Singh and others, therefore, the appeal preferred against that order was disposed of by the Collector, Ropar, vide his order Annexure P-2 dated 19.4.1995. In this order, it is observed that the appellants-Swaran Singh and others had failed to prove that this amount does not belong to Dera and belongs to somebody else. 11. For the purpose of consideration of this contempt petition, it is not required to be looked into as to who is entitled to the amount in question. In fact, the limited point which needs consideration is whether the respondent has violated the order passed by this Court in CWP No. 4441 of 2000 by not releasing the amount in favour of the petitioner. 12. The direction given in the order dated 26.4.2000 passed in CWP No. 4441 of 2000 is "that compensation, if due to the petitioner, shall be released to him" (emphasis supplied). The concerned authority was required to look into whether the amount is due to the petitioner or not. Only then, the same could be released in his favour. The respondent though issued the voucher in favour of the petitioner, having regard to the serious litigation going on between the parties as is evident from Annexure R-2, postponed the payment of the amount of compensation which was the subject-matter of litigation till the decision of the District Judge, to whom the reference was made under Section 35(2) of the Act. He has observed that there is dispute as regards the title, therefore, the Collector is not competent to release the compensation. Thus, the matter was referred to the District Judge, Ropar for disbursing the amount to the rightful owner. 13. With this background, it cannot be said that the respondent has wilfully or intentionally not complied with the order. In fact he has taken into consideration the directions of the Court to see whether the amount in question is due to the petitioner, and passed the order with a view to safeguard the interests of both the parties. 14. 13. With this background, it cannot be said that the respondent has wilfully or intentionally not complied with the order. In fact he has taken into consideration the directions of the Court to see whether the amount in question is due to the petitioner, and passed the order with a view to safeguard the interests of both the parties. 14. It is well-settled in order to punish a person for contempt of Court, it must not only be established in a court of law that the order of the Court has been violated but also that such violation has been wilful on the part of the contemnor. Whether wilful or intentional defiance on the part of the respondent is apparent in this case or even made out prima facie ? The answer to this query, as aforesaid, is in the negative. 15. In Union of India v. Satish Chander Sharma, 1992 SCC 194, it has been observed that the contempt power should be shielded and the sword should be drawn sparingly if the Court has been convinced that there has been wilful disobedience. The powers under the Contempt of Courts Act being extra-ordinary in nature, the Court should be reluctant to exercise the powers, particularly in a civil contempt, as observed in the case of Nirvail Singh Dhillon v. Sohan Singh Bassi, 1971 Punjab Law Reporter 344 (P&H). It has been further observed that where a clear case of contemptuous conduct not explainable otherwise arises, then only the contemnors must be punished. 16. In view of the aforesaid, no case is made out for initiating contempt proceedings against the respondent. This petition is, therefore, dismissed. Rule against the respondent is discharged.