Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2001 DIGILAW 979 (PNJ)

Bishamber Lal v. S. K. Vats

2001-09-05

R.L.ANAND

body2001
JUDGMENT R.L. Anand, J. - Shri Bishamber Lal has filed the present contempt petition against Shri S.K. Vats, Executive Officer, Municipal Council, Panipat and in short the grouse of the petitioner is that the commitment made by the respondent-officer on 2nd February, 1998 before the Honble Mr. Justice N.K. Sodhi has not been complied with. 2. Some facts can be noticed in the following manner : The petitioner Shri Bishamber Lal earlier filed a suit against the Municipal Committee Panipat through its President and the suit was disposed of vide judgment and decree dated 12th March, 1997 and the operative portion of the judgment and decree runs as follows : "In view my findings on above various issues the possession of the disputed property has been established to be that of the plaintiff and it has been further established on record that claim of the plaintiff for sale of the land to the plaintiff made vide application mark PB and Mark PC was found to be genuine vide mark PA. As already discussed there is nothing illegal or irregular in looking into the evidence of the report mark PA as it was admitted to be correct by DW-2. The ownership of the disputed property is admittedly that of the defendant. Consequently in view of above discussion and for the foregoing reason, suit of the plaintiff succeeds and the same is hereby decreed restraining the defendant from dispossessing the plaintiff except in due course of law and without deciding the claim of the plaintiff already pending with the Municipality. However, the defendant committee is directed to decide the claim of the plaintiff within two months from today and if the claim is decided against the plaintiff, the defendant shall not dispossess the plaintiff for the next two months so that the plaintiff may file appeal/revision/review or other legal proceedings, if any. Ultimately, if the case is finally decided against the plaintiff the defendant committee shall be at liberty to seek the possession of the disputed property by resorting to the provisions to law. However, the parties are left to bear their own costs. Decree sheet be drawn up accordingly and file be consigned to the record room after due compliance." 3. Ultimately, if the case is finally decided against the plaintiff the defendant committee shall be at liberty to seek the possession of the disputed property by resorting to the provisions to law. However, the parties are left to bear their own costs. Decree sheet be drawn up accordingly and file be consigned to the record room after due compliance." 3. The petitioner complained that the judgment and decree dated 12th March, 1997 has not been complied with vide which the defendant Municipality was restrained from dispossessing the plaintiff except in due course of law. It was also directed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Panipat by giving directions to the respondent to decide the claim of the plaintiff within two months from the date of passing of the decree. When the directions dated 12th March, 1997 were not complied with by the Municipal Council Panipat, the petitioner earlier filed a contempt petition (COCP No. 923 of 1997) and that came up for hearing before my Lord Honble Mr. Justice N.K. Sodhi who was pleased to issue notice to the respondent. In those proceedings written statement was filed by the Executive Engineer, Municipal Council, Panipat in which it was stated that "Council in its meeting held on 24.11.1997 passed a resolution accepting the claim of the petitioner and has forwarded the case to the State Government through the Deputy Commissioner Panipat for its approval". With this stand of the respondent, the Honble High Court held that in view of the stand taken by the respondent in the written statement the Courts directions stood complied with and no case for initiating contempt proceedings arose. It further appears that the Municipal Council sent the resolution to the Deputy Commissioner for its approval and for the approval of the State Government, but the Deputy Commissioner vide his order dated 29th December, 1997, suspended the resolution of the Municipal Council. The effect of this would be that the judgment and decree dated 12th March, 1997 remains uncomplied with. It further transpires that the petitioner made a representation to the State Government against the decision of the Deputy Commissioner and that representation is still pending and it is not being disposed of for the reasons that the Municipal Council or the Deputy Commissioner is not sending the entire record to the State Government for consideration on the representation of the petitioner. 4. 4. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, this contempt petition stands disposed of with the directions to the Deputy Commissioner and the Municipal Council Panipat to send the entire record to the State Government so that the State Government may take its independent decision against the order dated 29th December, 1997 passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Panipat. The directions of this Court must be complied with meticulously and immediately and not later than one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Dasti order to both the parties. Petition disposed of.