Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2007 DIGILAW 742 (PAT)

Shahana Iraqui v. State Of Bihar

2007-04-13

RAMESH KUMAR DATTA

body2007
Judgment 1. Heard Mr. Najmul Hodda, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Additional Advocate General No. 3, for the Opposite Parties. 2. The petitioner claims that contempt proceeding be initiated against opposite party-officials of the State Government for wilfully violating the judgment and decree dated 22.9.1998 passed by Munsif-II, Kishanganj in Title Suit No. 34 of 1996 and other orders passed pursuant to the same. 3. The case of the petitioner is that with respect to the property in question having an area of 1 katha 3 dhurs bearing old khata no. 551, old plot no. 177 of mauja Kasba Kutubganj he got filed a case as a Motwali of the Mosque for said land that the Municipal Survey Khatian had been published wrongly recording the name of the State of Bihar and other defendants in the year 1986. By the order under contempt dated 22.9.1998 the suit was decreed with cost under Order 8 Rule 10 CPC but without contest when it was declared that the Municipal Survey Khatian with respect to the suit land was wrong and the defendant-State of Bihar was restrained from making any disturbance in the peaceful possession of the plaintiff. The said judgment and decree was challenged by the State of Bihar by filing Title Appeal No. 52/1999 but the same was dismissed by order dated 13.9.2000 passed by the District Judge, Purnea on the ground that no limitation petition had been filed for condoning the delay on behalf of the appellants and no steps were being taken for prosecuting the said appeal., Thereafter the petitioner filed Title Execution Case No. 2/2003 and by order dated 29.5.2004, direction was given for issuing a writ for execution and the writ was to be returned by 12.6.2004 after execution of the order. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that despite the aforesaid judgment and decree of the Court the opposite parties have wilfully violated the same by putting up a lock over the said property contrary to the restraint order issued by the trial court. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that despite the aforesaid judgment and decree of the Court the opposite parties have wilfully violated the same by putting up a lock over the said property contrary to the restraint order issued by the trial court. Learned counsel also sought to support the stand of approaching this Court while invoking its contempt jurisdiction by relying upon a decision of a Division Bench of this Court in the case of Indian Oil Corporation Limited through Chairman vs. Sheo Shankar Mishra: 1995(2) PLJR 875, in para-15 of which it has been laid down that pendency of the execution case is no bar to the initiation of the contempt. In the said circumstances, learned counsel submits that by not permitting the petitioner to exercise his rights duly declared by the Courts for the disputed land in question they have committed contempt and are still continuing with the same. 5. Learned Additional Advocate General No. 3 on the other hand, has referred to various statements made in the show cause and the documents annexed therein to press the only point that the present contempt application is misconceived and no action had been taken by the State authorities to assert their rights in defiance of the orders of the learned Munsif. In this regard it is pointed out by the learned Additional Advocate General No. 3 that after the said order had been obtained by the petitioner behind the back of the authorities, there was communal tension developed in the area which forced the District Magistrate, Kishanganj to convene a meeting of the respectable persons of both the communities on 1.6.2004 at 12.00 noon. The said meeting was also attended by the present petitioner and the admitted position has been stated to be that the dispute and communal tension had arisen on account of the petitioner starting construction over the said disputed land and the petitioner also agreed that he will not take any such action which will endanger the peace of the town and will do whatever is agreed upon by all concerned and will obey the orders of the Collector. In the minutes of the said meeting recorded by the Collector vide memo no. In the minutes of the said meeting recorded by the Collector vide memo no. 843 dated 2.6.2004, it is stated that considering the law and order problem that had developed between the two sections, armed force was ordered to be deployed and the Sub-Divisional Officer, Kishanganj was directed to promulgate Sec. 144 Cr.P.C. in the area. Learned counsel for the petitioner however, submits that no case of breach of public peace and harmony took place which is stated in para-4 of his rejoinder to the show cause but he has not specifically denied the fact that no such meeting of the eminent persons of both communities had taken place on 1.6.2004 as well as the minutes have been recorded by the Collector with respect to the same by memo no. 843 dated 2.6.2004. In fact, in the said rejoinder to the show cause an order dated 9.6.2004 has been annexed as Annexure-6 in which it is stated that this is being passed in the light of memo no. 843 dated 2.6.2004 and the proposal passed therein by the general consensus and on the basis of the application and the order of the Court. Thereafter the Collector directed that both the parties shall obey the order passed by the Court. Reliance by the petitioner on the said Annexure-6 clearly amounts to admitting what had transpired on 1.6.2004 in the general meeting convened by the District Administration of the eminent persons of the two communities as well as what had transpired in the said meeting as recorded by the Collector vide memo no. 843 dated 2.6.2004. Further the said Annexure-6 dated 9.6.2004 also shows the clear position so far as the District Administration was concerned regarding the facts that the orders of the Court must be obeyed. For the said reasons, it could hardly be said that at the relevant point of time with respect to which the petitioner is aggrieved the administration had wrongly acted in the matter contrary to the order of the Court the same does not appear to be borne out by the actual action of the parties on the ground. 6. For the said reasons, it could hardly be said that at the relevant point of time with respect to which the petitioner is aggrieved the administration had wrongly acted in the matter contrary to the order of the Court the same does not appear to be borne out by the actual action of the parties on the ground. 6. Learned Additional Advocate General No. 3 also seeks to rely upon the order dated 14.6.2004 passed by Munsif-II, Kishanganj in Title Execution Case No. 2/ 2003 in which he had taken note of the fact that on account of the law and order situation in the town having become very tense due to the dispute between the two communities specific orders had been passed to maintain status quo till the filing of the rejoinder by the decree holder and it was further clarified that no one is entitled to disturb the alleged lock put up by the SDO including the S.D.O., Kishanganj himself and the decree holder. 7. Learned counsel further relies upon an order dated 21.11.2006 passed by the learned District Judge, Purnea in Misc. Case No. 56/2004 filed by the State of Bihar on 21.11.2006 by which he has extended the earlier orders of stay till 22.12.2006. It appears that the said orders of status quo are being extended from time to time and thus at no stage it could be said that there was any wilful disobedience of the orders of the Court. 8. On a consideration of the entire facts and circumstances of the case and the rival contentions of the parties, I am of the view that no case for invoking contempt jurisdiction of this Court is made out. It is true as held by a Division Bench of this Court in Indian Oil Corporation Limited case (supra), relied upon by the petitioner, that pendency of an execution case is no bar to the initiation of the contempt proceeding but in the said judgment in para-15 it has also been clarified that the proceeding for wilful disobedience of the judgment and order should be initiated only to uphold the dignity of the Court and the majesty of law. It was further made clear that in no case the contempt proceeding should be made a substitute for the execution proceeding and the paramount or rather the only consideration for initiation of civil contempt proceeding should be the wilful disobedience of the judgment and decree of the Court. 9. In view of the aforesaid law laid down and considering the fact that even in the year 2004, immediately after the execution court had passed its order on 29.12.2004 there was status quo granted and subsequently also the stay orders have been granted with respect to that matter by the learned District Judge, as also appears from Annexures B/1 and B/2 passed by the learned Execution Munsif, it does not appear to be a fit case where the petitioner should have approached this Court by invoking its contempt jurisdiction. In fact, the action of the petitioner appears to have been taken only to put pressure on the district authorities in the matter and prevent them from taking appropriate steps in accordance with law which they appear to be taking at present. 10. In the result, there is no merit in this contempt application and it is accordingly dismissed.