Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2001 DIGILAW 1417 (PNJ)

Mahant Suhkdev Muni v. Pritam Singh -

2001-12-21

BAKHSHISH KAUR

body2001
Judgment Bakhshish Kaur, J. 1. This is a contempt petition under Sections 10 and 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act (in short `the Act) filed by Sukhdev Muni Chela Mahant/Swami Daya Nand Uddasi. 2. The facts giving rise to the petition, briefly enumerated, are as under :- Shri Pritam Singh-respondent No. 1 claiming himself to be President of Sant Hira Dass Educational Society (Regd.), Kala Sanghian, Tehsil and District Kapurthala (hereinafter referred to as `the society), filed a suit for declaration that the society is owner in possession of the property measuring 42 Kanals 11 Marlas. The plaintiff is also running a College for women. There is also a playground besides certain buildings standing over the suit property. The ownership and possession has also been claimed on the basis of the will dated 31.12.1981. 3 The suit was contested by the petitioner, who had not only filed the written statement but also filed a counter claim seeking decree of permanent injunction restraining the plaintiff from interfering in the possession of the management and control of the suit property and also for mandatory injunction directing the plaintiff society to vacate the premises and also to remove the construction unauthorisedly made. 4. An application under Order 39 Rules 1 & 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure filed by the plaintiff was disposed of by the learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), on 24.5.1999. The petitioner aggrieved by the order had preferred an appeal before the learned District Judge, Kapurthala. During the pendency of the appeal, an order of permanent injunction was passed by the learned District Judge on 8.12.1999 directing the plaintiff society to raise construction over the land bearing Khasra No. 81//29(8-16), 23/2/1(1-6) and 23/1(2-16) total 12 Kanals 18 Marlas for the hostel building and Library etc. It was also ordered that in case the appellant succeeds in suit or in the counter claim, the society would leave the construction to the appellant as it is and it will not claim any damage or compensation etc. 5. The petitioner was not satisfied with the order Annexure P-1 passed by the first Appellate Court, therefore, he preferred Civil Revision No. 130 of 2000 and the following order was passed by the motion Bench on 20.1.2000 as under :- "At the request of Mr. Gandhi, adjourned to 15.2.2000 for arguments. 5. The petitioner was not satisfied with the order Annexure P-1 passed by the first Appellate Court, therefore, he preferred Civil Revision No. 130 of 2000 and the following order was passed by the motion Bench on 20.1.2000 as under :- "At the request of Mr. Gandhi, adjourned to 15.2.2000 for arguments. Till further orders, respondent shall not raise construction on the vacant land." 6. The petitioners case is that despite the specific orders passed by this Court, the respondents had raised construction by constructing the sheds and roads on the vacant land. The petitioner had lodged a report with the police on 16.4.2000 but the police has not taken any action. Hence, this contempt petition. 7. I have heard Mr. R.C. Setia, Senior Advocate, assisted by Mr. Anish Setia, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. G.S. Gandhi, learned counsel for the respondents. 8. Respondent No. 1 in his reply in the form of affidavit has averred that no construction on any part of the vacant land was made. The petitioner has got no locus standi to challenge the ownership and possession of the answering respondent over the land in question. It is not the personal possession of the answering respondent, rather it is the possession of a well established society. There is a girls hostel. The construction has been raised only in accordance with the orders and at no stage the orders passed by the Court have been violated. The shed, which the petitioner alleged to have been constructed after 20.1.2000, is four years old and it is clear from the site plan prepared by the Architect as well as from the photographs. 9. Since the parties were at ad-idem that there is no dispute with regard to construction over Khasra Nos. 81//29(8-16), 23/2/1(1-6) and 23/1(2-16) total 12 Kanals 18 Marlas for the purpose of hostel building and library etc., the dispute was only with regard to the construction raised upon the area comprised in Khasra Nos. 81//23/2/1, 29, 30, 80/1, 81/14/2, 15/2, 16/1, 17/1, 81//23/1, 218/43, 81/25/2, 80/21/1, 20/8/57, 81//15/3, 81//25/1 and 218/37. As per order dated November 9, 2000, passed by this Court, it was considered appropriate if the report is elicited from the revenue authorities of the district in this regard. 81//23/2/1, 29, 30, 80/1, 81/14/2, 15/2, 16/1, 17/1, 81//23/1, 218/43, 81/25/2, 80/21/1, 20/8/57, 81//15/3, 81//25/1 and 218/37. As per order dated November 9, 2000, passed by this Court, it was considered appropriate if the report is elicited from the revenue authorities of the district in this regard. The Deputy Commissioner, Kapurthala was directed to obtain report to the effect as to whether the cycle shed or any other building has recently been constructed beyond the area in which the hostel and library existed. It was further directed taht it shall also be ascertained as to what is the age of the construction. 10. In pursuance of the aforesaid order, the Deputy Commissioner, Kapurthala had inspected the spot and gave his report which is as under :- "It is requested in respect of above subject and reference that area of village Alamgir, Tehsil Kapurthala was inspected and spot site plan of the area was drawn/prepared at the spot room of school and canteen in Khasra No. 80//20/1 and Khasra No. 80//21/1 is vacant and there is ground on Khasra Nos. 81//14/2, 15/3, 17/1, 25/1. There are playgrounds of Basketball and Volleyball on Khasra No. 81//16/1, and there is metalled passage on Khasra No. 81//17/1 & 16/1. There is a cycle shed on Khasra No. 81//25/2, college & library are built on Khasra No. 81//29. Khasra No. 81//30 is lying vacant. There is hostel on some portion of Khasra No. 81//23/1, 23/2 and some portion of these Khasra Nos. is lying vacant. Khasra No. 218/37 and 218/43 are at some distance from above mentioned Khasra Numbers. These two Khasra Numbers do not fall in Area of School and College. Khasra Number 20/8/57 does not fall with revenue record. The reports in this respect are obtained (XEN PNB) Division, PWD B&R Branch, Kapurthala. The report of XEN, Kapurthala is same as above. Copies of report of Tehsildar, Kapurthala and XEN, PWD B&R Branch, Kapurthala are enclosed along with Existing site plan. All these documents along with reports are being submitted to your goodself, so that reply can be given on 5.9.2001 in the Honble High Court, Punjab & Haryana, Chandigarh. Sd/- For Deputy Commissioner, Kapurthala." 11 The Executive Engineer, PWD B&R Branch, Kapurthala had assisted the Deputy Commissioner because in the order dated November 9, 2000 it was ordered that assistance from the Engineering Department be also taken by the Deputy Commissioner. Sd/- For Deputy Commissioner, Kapurthala." 11 The Executive Engineer, PWD B&R Branch, Kapurthala had assisted the Deputy Commissioner because in the order dated November 9, 2000 it was ordered that assistance from the Engineering Department be also taken by the Deputy Commissioner. He has reported that claims of both the parties supporting documents and local inquiries are of contradictory nature, giving only an approximate hint of age of construction of Khasra No. at serial Nos. 7, 8 and 11 as 1-2 year old. 12. The proceedings in the contempt petition are to be decided in a summary manner on the basis of the affidavits brought on the record and certain other relevant documents. Since the fate of this case depends on the report received from the Deputy Commissioner and that of the Executive Engineer, PWD B&R Branch, therefore, the matter requires to be scrutinised with due care and caution. Whether the respondents are in any way guilty for committing the contempt of Court ? 13. The acts of contempt alleged are the construction having been raised by the respondents after stay order and thereby violated the orders of the Court. If any of these two acts is established, it would tantamount to contempt.? 14. Regarding the age of the construction having been raised after the issuance of the stay order, the Executive Engineer, PWD B&R Branch has reported that claims of both the parties supporting documents and local inquiries are of contradictory nature, giving only an approximate hint of age. Thus, the approximate age of construction can be either this way or that way, either favoring the petitioner or the condemner. 15. The proceedings in the contempt petition are quasi-criminal in nature. The Court must be satisfied on the material before it that the contempt of court was in fact committed. As regards the burden and standard of proof, the observations made by the Honble Judges of the Supreme Court in Chhotu Ram v. Urvashi Gulati and another, 2002(1) RCR(Crl.) 179 : 2001 SCW 3208 are of vital importance for the purpose of decision of this case. It has been observed that as regards the burden and standard of proof, the common legal phraseology "he who asserts must prove" has its due application in the matter of proof of the allegations said to be constituting the act of contempt. It has been observed that as regards the burden and standard of proof, the common legal phraseology "he who asserts must prove" has its due application in the matter of proof of the allegations said to be constituting the act of contempt. It has been further observed as under :- "As regards the `standard of proof, be it noted that a proceeding under the extraordinary jurisdiction of the Court in terms of the provisions of the Contempt of Courts Act is a quasi-criminal, and as such, the standard of proof required is that of a criminal proceeding and the breach shall have to be established beyond all reasonable doubt." 16. Reference has also been made to the observations made by Lord Denning [in Re Bramblevale 1969(3) All ER 1062] in Chhotu Rams case (supra) as under :- "A contempt of Court is an offence of a criminal character. A man may be sent to prison for it. It must be satisfactorily proved. To use the time honoured phrase, it must be proved by showing that, when the man was asked about it, he told lies. There must be some further evidence to incriminate him. Once some evidence is given, then his lies can be thrown into the scale against him. But there must be some other evidence. .............. When there are two equally consistent possibilities upon to the Court, it is not right to hold that the offence is proved beyond reasonable doubt." "4. Before adverting to the factual score, one further decision may be of some consequence and as such the same is noticed at this juncture only. The decision being that of V.G. Nigam v. Kedar Nath Gupta, 1992(4) SCC 697 : 1992 AIR SCW 2529 : AIR 1992 SC 2153 : 1992 Cri LJ 3576, where in the similar vein this Court also stated that it would be too hazardous to sentence in exercise of contempt jurisdiction on mere probabilities. This Court went on to record that the wilful conduct is a primary and basic ingredient of such an offence." 17. The nature of the case in hand is such that it is based more on probabilities. The standard of proof brought on the record is not enough to hold the condemners as guilty of contempt because the wilful contempt which is a primary and basic ingredient of the offence does not stand proved. 18. The nature of the case in hand is such that it is based more on probabilities. The standard of proof brought on the record is not enough to hold the condemners as guilty of contempt because the wilful contempt which is a primary and basic ingredient of the offence does not stand proved. 18. For the foregoing reasons, the contempt petition is dismissed. Rule against the respondents is discharged. Petition dismissed.