Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2001 DIGILAW 1425 (PNJ)

Attar Singh v. Arun Gupta

2001-12-21

BAKHSHISH KAUR

body2001
Judgment Bakhshish Kaur, J. 1. Attar Singh has filed this petition under Section 11 read with Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act. 2. The facts giving rise to this petition, briefly enumerated, are as follows :- 3. Attar Singh-petitioner and other proprietors of the village are owners in possession of the land in question being shareholders/right holders. The land has been recorded in the revenue record as Shamlat Deh Hasab Paimana Malqiat in the column of ownership and in the column of cultivation, the land has been recorded as Maqbooja Malkan and the names of the shareholders are also indicated therein. 4. The land in question is not Shamlat Deh under Section 2-g of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as `the Act). It was neither used nor utilised for common purposes of the village. 5. The petitioner and other co-sharers filed a regular suit on 24.8.1988 under Section 13-A of the Act in the Court of Assistant Collector Ist Grade, Jhajjar (hereinafter referred to as `the Collector) for deciding the question of title in respect of the land in question as the Gram Panchayat was interfering in the peaceful possession of the petitioner and others. The Collector without deciding the question of title dismissed the suit vide order dated July 3, 1989 solely on the ground of limitation. The appeal preferred by the petitioner and others was also dismissed by the Collector on November 13, 1990. The revision preferred also met with law same fate vide order dated April 26, 1991, passed by the Commissioner. 6. Dissatisfied with the aforesaid orders passed by the revenue authorities, the petitioner and others filed CWP No. 15644 of 1991, titled Attar Singh and others v. State of Haryana and others. It was admitted. The stay was granted at the motion hearing. When the writ petition came up for final hearing on December 21, 1998, this Court had set aside the above-mentioned order, as the question of title was not decided by the Collector in accordance with law. The case was, therefore, remanded to decide the petition under Section 13-A of the Act in accordance with law expeditiously preferably within six months from the date of appearance. Copy of the order is Annexure P-1. 7. The case was, therefore, remanded to decide the petition under Section 13-A of the Act in accordance with law expeditiously preferably within six months from the date of appearance. Copy of the order is Annexure P-1. 7. After the remand, it was again dismissed vide order dated November 12, 1999 whereby the Gram Panchayat was declared owner of the land in question as per order Annexure P-2. 8. The petitioner and others had challenged the order dated November 12, 1999 by way of filing appeal on January 12, 2000 whereby the operation of the order and the dispossession of the petitioner and others was stayed till the final decision of the appeal. Since no decision was taken on the appeal and it was being adjourned time and again and when the petitioner came to know through reliable information that the local administration with the help of the police is coming to the village to take possession of the land, the petitioner immediately filed the writ petition CWP No. 7968 of 2000 titled Attar Singh v. The collector, Jhajjar and others, was fixed for hearing on the same date, i.e. 16.6.2000 and the Division Bench had stayed the dispossession till the decision of the stay application. The order was conveyed telephonically by one of the petitioners. The petitioner gave an affidavit to Shri S.B. Lohia respondent No. 2, who was present on the spot, as he along with police and other official respondents had come to the village on 16.6.2000 in order to dispossess the petitioner and other co-sharers. The Collector had thus adjourned the case from 26.6.2000 to 5.7.2000. 9. The respondents were adamant in dispossessing the petitioner as respondents No. 7 and 8 with the help of respondents No. 9 to 12, who were present there with `Jaili and `Farsas started ploughing about 5-6 acres of land which was a part of the land in dispute. In this way, they have damaged the Jawar, Maize and Paddy saplings. 10. The petitioner has also alleged that the respondents got the 4petitioner and others arrested by the police of Police Station, Jhajjar by registering a false and frivolous case against them vide FIR No. 231 dated 21.6.2000 under Sections 148, 149, 323, 324, 427, 447 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3, 4, 5, 55 and 89 of S.C./S.T. Act. This case was registered on the complaint of Daryao Singh-respondent No. 7, who even does not belong to the community of Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe. The petitioner and others are in judicial custody in District Jail, Rohtak. In this manner the respondents in connivance and in collusion with each other by destroying the standing crop of the petitioner and others have violated the order dated 16.6.2000. The photographs of the spot annexed with the petition are Annexures P-5/A to P- 5/F. 11. I have heard Mr. Mahavir Sandhu, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Sultan Singh, AAG, for respondents No. 1 to 4 and Sh. Ramesh Hooda, learned counsel for respondents No. 5 and 6 and Mr. S.S. Kharb, learned counsel for respondents No. 7 to 12. 12. Respondents No. 1 in his written statement by way of affidavit controverted the allegations contained in the petition. It is averred inter alia that the contempt petition is not maintainable because the order passed in CWP No. 7968 of 2000 dated 16.6.2000 has not been violated, as the copy of the order was not delivered to the deponent on 16.6.2000. He had no information about the order passed by this Court. The Gram Panchayat, Kaloi had pased a resolution dated 1.12.1999 to lease out Shamlat land. Hence, as per decision taken in the resolution, Gram Panchayat, Kaloi leased out its land measuring 478 bighas 20 biswas on 6.12.1999. This land was already in possession of the Gram Panchayat as per Annexure R-1. The copy of the lease of lease holders is Annexure R-2. 13. On 20-12-1999, the lease holders of Gram Panchayat, Kaloi made an application Annexure R-3/T to the Block Development and Panchayat Officer, Jhajjar (hereinafter referred to as the B.D. & P.O.) that some miscreants were creating hurdles in their cultivation. The Gram Panchayat, Kaloi passed a resolution in this regard, copy whereof was sent to the B.D. & P.O. to provide police help and to take necessary action against the miscreants. The B.D. & P.O. vide letter dated 2.6.2000 requested the S.D.O. (C), Jhajjar to provide police help to lessees. The S.D.O. (C) vide letter dated 2.6.2000 demanded police help for 5.6.2000. After obtaining the necessary permission, the S.D.M. (C), Jhajjar, B.D. & P.O., Jhajjar, Tehsildar, Kanungo and Patwari along with police visited village Kaloi on 16.6.2000. The B.D. & P.O. vide letter dated 2.6.2000 requested the S.D.O. (C), Jhajjar to provide police help to lessees. The S.D.O. (C) vide letter dated 2.6.2000 demanded police help for 5.6.2000. After obtaining the necessary permission, the S.D.M. (C), Jhajjar, B.D. & P.O., Jhajjar, Tehsildar, Kanungo and Patwari along with police visited village Kaloi on 16.6.2000. The lessees cultivated their respective land on the spot and no resistance was shown by any miscreants. The list containing names of the lease holders who were allowed to cultivate their land is Annexure R-2/R-7. 14. During the course of arguments, it was admitted that the petitioner is still in possession of the land and he has not been dispossessed. His grievance is that his crop of that year has been damaged. 15. The learned counsel for the petitioner tried to build up a case of contempt by repeatedly making reference to the photographs Annexures P-5/A to P-5/F saying that official respondents were present on the spot when his crop was damaged and everything was done under the directions of respondent No. 1. 16. On the contrary, the case set up by the respondents is that Gram Panchayat, Kaloi had passed a resolution to lease out the land measuring 478 bighas 20 biswas on 6.12.1999. The list of the lease holders is Annexures R- 2/R-7. The land was already in possession of the Gram Panchayat. The application of the lease holders that some miscreants were creating hurdles in their cultivation is Annexure R-3/T. Thus, the Gram Panchayat had passed a resolution that police help may be sought. The copy of the resolution is Annexure R-4/T. In this way, when a request was made to the Deputy Commissioner, Jhajjar to provide police help, the same was allowed. This apart, from the petition it is not made out as to on which date the possession of the petitioner was disturbed or his crop was damaged, whereas on the contrary the petitioner himself has referred to the registration of a case against him and others vide FIR No. 231 dated 21.6.2000 under Sections 148, 149, 323, 324, 427, 447 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3, 4, 5, 55 and 89 of S.C./S.T. Act. 17. When a criminal case has already been registered against the petitioner, can he file the contempt petition ? 17. When a criminal case has already been registered against the petitioner, can he file the contempt petition ? This contempt petition was filed only on 4.7.2000 and case against him was registered on 21.6.2000. Rather litigation spirit of the parties and an attempt to score over each other is evident in this case. In Gopal Chandra Biswas v. State of West Bengal and others, AIR 1974 Calcutta 3, it has been observed that, "...... in such case as this, where proceedings in the Magistrates Court would be sufficient to meet the requirements of the case, it is not desirable to invoke the special jurisdiction inherent in this Court by way of proceedings for contempt of Court. 18. For the foregoing reasons, this petition is dismissed. Rule against the respondents is discharged.