Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2009 DIGILAW 321 (PAT)

Arbind Kumar v. State Of Bihar

2009-02-26

RAMESH KUMAR DATTA

body2009
JUDGEMENT 1. The contempt application has been filed for initiating a contempt proceeding against opposite party No.2 (Dinesh Kumar Lal) for violating the order dated 20.3.2002 of this Court passed in the connected writ petition bearing C.W.J.C. No. 2089/2002. 2. The allegation of the petitioner is that even though the maintenance of status quo by all the parties was ordered by this Court on 20.3.2002 and notice was issued and served upon opposite party No.2 during the month of April, 2002, yet he alongwith others started construction over the land which is still continuing. 3. It is submitted that the petitioner informed the Officer-in-charge of Khodawanpur Police Station on 24.8.2002 and thereafter he filed a petition on 27.8.2002 before the S.D.O., Mazaul, Begusarai, yet the opposite party No.2 has continued with the construction work. 4. In a supplementary affidavit sworn on 7.7.2008, the petitioner has again asserted that on 19.4.2008, the opposite party No.2 started collecting materials for starting construction on the land, which is the subject matter in the writ petition. On learning about the same, the petitioner sent an information on 23.4.2008 to the S.D.O. Mazaul in this regard and on 24.4.2008, a similar petition was sent to the Officer-in-charge, Khodawanpur. Again on 24.4.2008, the petitioner sent a petition to the S.D.O., Mazaul when opposite party No.2 started making construction over the land and when no action was taken by the police, another petition was filed on 30.4.2008 by the petitioner before the S.D.O., Mazaul. Learned counsel for the petitioner produced four photographs taken a few days earlier to show that a fresh construction has been made by opposite party No.2 adjoining to the boundary wall of the petitioner. It is stated by learned counsel for the petitioner that the said construction was made in the year 2002 after the interim order of status quo was passed by this Court. 5. In the show cause filed on behalf of opposite party No.2, it is stated that there has never been any disobedience of the order dated 20.3.2002 of this Court regarding the maintenance of status quo. It is asserted in the said show cause that opposite party No.2 has not made any construction over the land in question since 2001 and the statements made in the contempt application have been denied. It is asserted in the said show cause that opposite party No.2 has not made any construction over the land in question since 2001 and the statements made in the contempt application have been denied. It is, on the other hand, pointed out that the petitioner had earlier filed a petition against opposite party No.2 before the S.D.O., Mazaul for initiating a proceeding under Section 144 of the Code of Criminal Procedure bearing Misc. Case No. 248M/2000, which had been decided in favour of opposite party No.2 by order dated 29.12.2000/10.1.2001. It is also stated that earlier the S.D.O. had deputed the Circle Officer, Khodawanpur and the Officer-in-charge, Khodawanpur to look into the matter regarding the disturbance being caused by the petitioner in construction of the house by opposite party No.2 on his part of the plot in question and thereafter when the Block Agriculture Officer deputed by the Circle Officer as the Magistrate incharge and the Officer-in-charge, Khodawanpur went to the spot, they have been injured by pelting of stones on the Magistrate and the Police personnels by the petitioner and his associates, for which Khodawanpur P.S. Case No. 4/2001 dated 29.1.2001 has been registered against the petitioner. Again the S.D.O. by his order dated 23.1.2001 had directed the Circle Officer to take appropriate steps against the petitioner-Arbind Kumar for disturbing opposite party No.2 in the construction of his house. However, when the opposite party No.2 learnt about the order of this Court, he immediately stopped his construction work and after 2001, no construction has been carried on over the land in question. 6. On a consideration of the materials on the record and the photographs produced by learned counsel for the petitioner, it is evident that some constructions exist adjacent to the boundary of the petitioner over the disputed portion of the land, which is just a few feet higher than the construction of the petitioner. It is also clear that the said construction is incomplete and has not been plastered over. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the same has been made in the year 2002, but there is nothing from which it can be inferred that the same had been made after the order of this Court and not a few months prior to the order of this Court in the year 2001 itself. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the same has been made in the year 2002, but there is nothing from which it can be inferred that the same had been made after the order of this Court and not a few months prior to the order of this Court in the year 2001 itself. In fact the state of construction makes it clear that the supplementary affidavit sworn on 7.7.2008 does not present a correct picuture as it reiterates further construction being made in the year 2008 apart from the constructions that were carried on in the year 2002. If the petitioner had continued to make construction from the year 2002, the entire construction would have been completed by now when nearly seven years have passed and there would be no occasion to make further construction in the year 2008. The state of construction as appearing from the photographs goes to show that it has been stopped at some point of time which may be of the year 2001 or 2002, but it appears that substantially the opposite party No.2 has obeyed the order of this court in maintaining status quo by not going ahead and completing the room for which purpose the wall was being raised. 7. In the above circumstances, no case of wilful disobedience of any order of this Court is made out against opposite party No.2 and, accordingly, the contempt proceedings initiated against him are dropped. 8. M.J.C. No. 2022 of 2002 is, accordingly, dismissed. C.W.J.C. No. 2089/2002 : 9. Mr. Ajay Kumar, Advocate who is appearing for opposite party No.2 in M.J.C. No. 2022/2002, states that he would be filing a vakalatnama on behalf of respondent No.5, the alleged contemner-opposite party No.2 in the contempt petition, within two weeks from today. He also states that within the same period, he would be filing the counter affidavit on behalf of respondent No.5 in the writ petition. 10. Learned counsel for the petitioner is directed to serve a copy of the writ petition upon Mr. Ajay Kumar, learned counsel for respondent No.5 by 2.3.2009. 11. Put up the matter among top twenty cases under the heading "For Admission" on 17.3.2009.