Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2005 DIGILAW 396 (PNJ)

Vijay Kumar v. Jarnail Singh

2005-03-17

D.K.JAIN, HEMANT GUPTA

body2005
Judgment Hemant Gupta, J. 1. The Panchayat Samiti, Jandiala Guru, as owner of land, decided to lease out some of its land for commercial/industrial purposes by dividing the same into plots of 2 kanals or less. An open auction was held for leasing of said plots on 29th February, 2000 and 2nd of May, 2000. As per the case set up by the petitioners, they were the highest bidders and the Panchayat Samiti gave possession of leased plots between March, 2000 and July, 2000. Thereafter, the petitioners started construction by filling up of low lying area; construction of boundary wall for security and safety; and constructing sheds/storage place/office rooms for the purpose of business. It has been further pleaded that certain persons, who were aggrieved with the auction, were influencing administration/police and were interfering with the peaceful possession of the petitioners. It was pleaded that on 3.8.2000, a portion of the wall constructed by one of the petitioners was demolished and some construction and other material lying at the site were forcibly removed by the party headed by ASI Paramjit Singh. It is stated that as a result of threat and action on 3.8.2000, the petitioners felt threatened and were unable to mobilise labourers to resume construction. It was pleaded that the threat became more prominent in view of the fact that the police authorities did not give any favourable response at the behest of some higher authorities. It is thereafter that Civil Writ Petition No. 10271 of 2000 was filed which came up for hearing before this Court on 7.8.2000 wherein the following order was passed:- "Notice of motion for August 16, 2000. Dasti. Status quo shall be maintained in the meantime. Copy of the order duly certified by the Court Reader be given Dasti." 2. It is the case of the petitioners that attested copy of the aforesaid order was taken for information to the Station House Officer, Police Station Jandiala Guru, at about 7.30 p.m. on 7.8.2000. The attested copy of the order was shown to Shri Jarnail Singh, Station House Officer, Police Station Jandiala Guru, and Paramjit Singh, Assistant Sub Inspector, and photo copy of the same was handed over to them. The attested copy of the order was shown to Shri Jarnail Singh, Station House Officer, Police Station Jandiala Guru, and Paramjit Singh, Assistant Sub Inspector, and photo copy of the same was handed over to them. Similarly, the order passed by this Court was shown to Shri Mohinder Singh, District Development and Panchayat Officer, at about 8.30 p.m. at Amritsar in the presence of Shri Harjinder Singh, Block Development and Panchayat Officer, Raiyya, and Shri Gurpreet Singh Nagra, Block Development and Panchayat, Naushera Pannuan, as the office of the Panchayat Samiti Office was closed at 5.00 p.m. and no responsible officer of the Panchayat Samiti was available after that time at Jandiala Guru. It is alleged that at about 10.30 p.m on 7.8.2000, the structures built by the petitioners were demolished. Thus, the action of the respondents in demolishing the structure after communication of t he order of "status quo" is willful disobedience of the order passed by this Court. 3. The respondents took up the stand in the written statement that order dated August 07, 2000, was never communicated to them and that the said order has merged in the main order dated 6.10.2000 when writ petition was disposed of. It was denied that any plot was leased to petitioner No. 3. It was pleaded that petitioner No. 3 and six other persons were accommodated by the Executive Officer of the Panchayat Samiti with a view to deprive the Panchayat Samiti of its valuable land situated on G.T. Road situated exactly on the back side of the shops of the Panchayat Samiti. It is also stated that the possession of the plots was given subject to the approval of the auction by the Government but before the said approval, some of the persons encroached upon the land by breaking the rear wall of the shops already in their possession. It was further pleaded that plot Nos. 13 to 19 do not have any approach from any side and as such there arises no question of auctioning such plots for commercial purpose. 4. It was further pleaded that plot Nos. 13 to 19 do not have any approach from any side and as such there arises no question of auctioning such plots for commercial purpose. 4. It has also come on record that the writ petition filed by the petitioners wherein interim order was passed was disposed of on October 6, 2000, to consider the matter regarding auction alleged to have taken place in February and May, 2000, within a period of three months and any party aggrieved by the final decision shall be entitled to seek its remedy in accordance with law. Still further, the petitioners were not to raise any further construction for a period of six months and the petitioners were given the liberty to seek their remedy before the competent Court in respect of violation of any interim order passed by the Court. Admittedly, in pursuance of such directions, the Panchayat Samiti passed an order whereby auction of the plots in favour of the petitioners was found to be invalid. Such order was challenged before this Court in Civil Writ Petition No. 8753 of 2001 and another connected writ petition which was dismissed by a Division Bench of this Court on 14.11.2002. 5. The petitioners filed the present petition under Section 11 and 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act for initiation of contempt proceedings alleging violation of order dated 7.8.2000 passed by this Court in Civil Writ Petition No. 10271 of 2000, on the ground that in spite of order of status quo passed by this Court on 7.8.2000 and the said order having been communicated to the respondents, still the respondents demolished the construction on 7.8.2000 at about 10.30 p.m. and, thus, made themselves liable for proceedings under the Contempt of Courts Act. 6. On 6.8.2002, it was found by the learned Single Judge of this Court that, prima facie, a case for contempt has been made out and since it is a criminal contempt, it is required to be considered by a Division Bench. 7. The question which requires to be examined is whether the petitioners have communicated the order of status quo on 7.8.2000 and thereafter the respondents have demolished the construction or that the petitioners can make the grievance of violation of the interim order even though the writ petition in, which said interim order was passed stands dismissed. 7. The question which requires to be examined is whether the petitioners have communicated the order of status quo on 7.8.2000 and thereafter the respondents have demolished the construction or that the petitioners can make the grievance of violation of the interim order even though the writ petition in, which said interim order was passed stands dismissed. Even the writ petition challenging the order of cancellation of auction was also dismissed. 8. It is pleaded by the petitioners that on 3.8.2000, the construction was demolished. It is not pleaded that they have resumed the construction thereafter. There is no acknowledgement of the order granting status quo having been communicated to the respondents. The demolition is alleged to have taken place on 7.8.2000 at about 10.30 p.m. i.e. on the same day when the order of status quo was passed. The proceedings of contempt are quasi criminal in nature and the charge is required to be proved beyond reasonable doubt. It has been so held by the Supreme Court in the decision reported as Mrityunjoy Dass and Anr. v. Sayed Hasibur Rahaman and Ors., (2001)3 Supreme Court Cases 739. In Para No. 14 of the judgment, it has been held as under:- "14. The other aspect of the matter ought also to be noticed at this juncture, viz., the burden and standard of proof. The common English phrase "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. 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 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 reasonable doubt. The observations of Lord Denning in Bramblevale Ltd, Re, lend support to the aforesaid. Lord Denning in Re Bramblevale stated: (All E.R. pp.1063H and 1064B) "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 beyond reasonable doubt. It is not proved by showing that, when the man was asked about it, he told lies. There must be some further evidence to incriminate him. A man may be sent to prison for it. It must be satisfactorily proved. To use the time-honoured phrase, it must be proved beyond reasonable doubt. It is not 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...Where there are two equally consistent possibilities open to the Court, it is not right to hold that the offence is proved beyond reasonable doubt." 9. Keeping in view the aforesaid principle of law, it is required to be examined whether the petitioners have proved beyond reasonable doubt that the construction was demolished after the order of status quo was communicated to the respondents. The facts as pleaded do not lead to any inference which may entail a finding that it is the respondents who have demolished the construction after the order of status quo was communicated. The allegations in respect of demolition of construction at about 10.30 p.m. on 7.8.2000 are not such which does not lead to the conclusion that the respondents have demolished the construction in violation of the order passed by the Court. The case set up by the petitioners is on the probabilities of the situation which does not warrant a finding that it was the respondents who have demolished the construction. The construction is also alleged to be demolished on August 3, 2000. May be, the petitioners are alleging demolition to be after the order of status quo. Still further, demolition on the same day late in the night is not supported by any evidence of such demolition at that time. The only circumstance relied upon is the telegram given at 00.04 a.m. on 8.8.2000. Such fact alone is not sufficient to return a finding that demolition was carried out at the given time and after the order was communicated to the respondents. It has been found that the petitioners have no right over the area claimed by them. 10. Thus, the allegations against the respondents are not proved beyond reasonable doubt having regard to the nature of the dispute and the allegations made by the petitioners themselves. It has been found that the petitioners have no right over the area claimed by them. 10. Thus, the allegations against the respondents are not proved beyond reasonable doubt having regard to the nature of the dispute and the allegations made by the petitioners themselves. Therefore, we are unable to hold that it is the respondents who have demolished the construction raised by the petitioners after the order of status quo was passed and communicated to the respondents. 11. Consequently, we do not find that present is the case to proceed further in the contempt petition. Rule is, thus, discharged.