Research › Search › Judgment

Calcutta High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 209 (CAL)

Sudharani Maity v. Durga Das Goswami

2010-02-26

ANIRUDDHA BOSE, S.P.TALUKDAR

body2010
JUDGMENT S.P. Talukdar, J. 1. THE predecessor-in-interest of the present petitioners, as plaintiff, approached the learned Civil Court with a suit being Title Suit No. 55 of 1972 against the State of West Bengal praying for declaration of title and consequential reliefs. It was contested by the State of West Bengal, as defendant. After contested hearing the said suit was decreed thereby declaring the right, title and interest in respect of the lands under reference except plot No.158 of Mouza Bara Kashinathpur, in favour of the plaintiff. The learned Civil Court also held that such lands did not vest in the State. The State of West Bengal was restrained by order of permanent injunction from interfering with the possession of the plaintiff. The State of West Bengal challenged the same by way of filing an appeal but the same was dismissed. In absence of any second appeal, the said order reached its finality. 2. THE applicants on the basis of such decree submitted representations seeking correction of the entries in the relevant record of rights relating to such lands. Alleging inaction on the part of the said authorities, the applicants knocked the door of the West Bengal Land Reforms and Tenancy Tribunal seeking redressal of grievances. By order dated 12th June, 2001, the learned Tribunal dismissed such application holding, inter alia, that the civil suit related to matters specified in Clause (b) and Clause (c) of Section 57B (2) of the West Bengal Estate Acquisition Act, 1953 and it was held to have abated. The learned Tribunal thus held that the decree of the Civil Court which was affirmed by the Appellate Court was non-est in the eye of law and as such, the land under reference was vested in the State. Such order dated 12th of June, 2001 passed by the learned Tribunal was then assailed by the applicants before the learned Division Bench of this court by filing an application under Article 226 of the Constitution being W.P.L.R.T.No.687 of 2001. 3. THE Division Bench of this court by judgment and order dated 11th September, 2002 set aside the impugned order of the learned Tribunal and sent the matter back before the concerned officer for consideration of the application for correction of the entries in the record of rights in respect of the lands in question. 4. 3. THE Division Bench of this court by judgment and order dated 11th September, 2002 set aside the impugned order of the learned Tribunal and sent the matter back before the concerned officer for consideration of the application for correction of the entries in the record of rights in respect of the lands in question. 4. IT was further directed that such application must be heard and disposed of in presence of the writ petitioners and other interested parties if there be any, and by passing a reasoned order in accordance with law within 4(four) months from the date of communication of the order. The petitioner after obtaining a certified copy of the order of the Honble Court, submitted a representation dated 1st November, 2002. It was supported by Photostat certified copy of the judgment/order of the High Court dated 11th September, 2002, the Photostat copy of the judgment dated 26th February, 1973, decree dated 5th March, 1975 passed in Title Suit No.55 of 1972 and Photostat copy of the judgment passed in Title Appeal No.138 of 1973 dated 7th July, 1975. The applicants thereby requested the District Land and Land Reforms Officer, Purba Medinipur for the direction upon the Block Land and Land Reforms Officer, Contai-I and Ramnagar-II to do needful as per the order of the Honble Court. The respondent-authorities despite receipt of such representation did not take any action whatsoever. This compelled the applicants to send a lawyers notice demanding justice dated 4th July, 2003. The respondent-authorities received the same on 10th July, 2003. The respondent-authorities did not choose to respond. 5. THE petitioner alleged that this amounted to deliberate negligence and wilful disobedience on the part of the respondent-authorities. It was claimed that the said authorities are thus liable to be punished for wilful disobedience of this courts order dated 11th September, 2002. The contemnor-respondent No.2 while denying the allegations made by the applicants claimed that there had been no wilful disobedience of this courts order and the said order dated 11th September, 2002 was duly complied with. 6. BY filing an Affidavit of Compliance, it had been claimed that in compliance with the order dated 11th September, 2002, the BL and LRO, Contai-I started a Misc. Case bearing No.1 of 2006. Hearing was held on several dates and parties were directed to produce relevant documents in support of their respective claims. 6. BY filing an Affidavit of Compliance, it had been claimed that in compliance with the order dated 11th September, 2002, the BL and LRO, Contai-I started a Misc. Case bearing No.1 of 2006. Hearing was held on several dates and parties were directed to produce relevant documents in support of their respective claims. While tendering apology for failure to comply with this courts order dated 11th September, 2002 within the prescribed time, such respondent No.2 claimed that the said order had duly been complied with. Mr. Sahoo, as learned Counsel for the petitioners submitted that the manner in which the order dated 11th September, 2002 had been sought to be complied with would further reflect latent disregard on the part of the authorities to the order of this court. 7. IT was submitted on behalf of the applicants that the authority-concerned could not be permitted to take any liberty once the court comes to a definite finding in regard to either a factual aspect or any point of law. Deriving inspiration from the decision of the Apex court in the case between Prithawi Nath Ram vs. State of Jharkhand and Ors., as reported in (2004) 7 SCC 261 , Mr. Sahoo submitted that while dealing with an application for contempt, the court is concerned with the question whether the earlier decision which has received its finality had been complied with or not. IT is not for the court to examine the correctness of the earlier decision, which had remained unassailed nor it is permissible to take a view different than what was taken earlier. The Apex Court in the said case held: - Right or wrong, the order has to be obeyed. Flouting an order of the court would render the party liable for contempt. While dealing with an application for contempt the court cannot traverse beyond the order, non-compliance with which is alleged. IT cannot test correctness or otherwise of the order or give additional direction or delete any direction. To put it other way, there is not to reason why? But to do, and comply. 8. IN fact, there can be no scope for any confusion or controversy in regard to the scope and ambit of an application for contempt. Before proceeding further, it is perhaps necessary to refer to the specific direction of the Division Bench in the order under reference. But to do, and comply. 8. IN fact, there can be no scope for any confusion or controversy in regard to the scope and ambit of an application for contempt. Before proceeding further, it is perhaps necessary to refer to the specific direction of the Division Bench in the order under reference. The same reads: - For the reasons aforesaid, we set aside the impugned order of the learned Tribunal and sent the case back before the concerned officer for consideration of the application for correction of the entries in the record of rights in respect of the lands in question. The said application must be heard and disposed of in presence of the writ petitioners and other interested parties if there be any, and 6 by passing a reasoned order in accordance with law within 4 (four) months from the date of communication of this order. Much had been sought to be read in the word consideration. In this context, Mr. Sahoo quite rightly referred to the decision of the Apex Court in the case between A.P. Srtc and Ors vs. G.Srinivas Reddy and Ors., as reported in (2006) 3 SCC 674 . The Apex Court held: - While the High Court finds the decision-making process erroneous and records its findings as to the manner in which the decision should be made, and then directs the authority to consider the matter, the authority will have to consider and decide the matter in the light of its findings or observations of the court. But while the High Court without recording any findings, or without expressing any view, merely directs the authority to consider the matter, the authority will have to consider the matter in accordance with law, with reference to the facts and circumstances of the case, its power not being circumscribed by any observations or findings of the court. In Employees State Insurance Corpn. vs. All India ITDC Employees Union and Ors., as reported in (2006) 4 SCC 257 , the Apex Court took an identical view. Mr. A. B. Chatterjee, appearing as learned Counsel for the alleged contemnors submitted that the order of the Honble Court had in fact been duly complied with. Inviting attention of the court to the Affidavit of Compliance, Mr. Mr. A. B. Chatterjee, appearing as learned Counsel for the alleged contemnors submitted that the order of the Honble Court had in fact been duly complied with. Inviting attention of the court to the Affidavit of Compliance, Mr. Chatterjee submitted that there had been some delay for which the alleged contemnors had tendered apology but finally the order of the Division Bench had duly been complied with. The copy of the proceeding in compliance with the order of the High Court passed in W.P.L.R.T. No.687 of 2001 has been annexed to the Affidavit of Compliance. 9. MR. Chatterjee invited attention to the court to the order No.7 dated 24th March, 2006 passed by the concerned Revenue Authority in connection with the said proceeding. There is no doubt that said Revenue Authority, as reflected from the order dated 24th of March, 2006, had analysed the relevant materials in minute details. He started from the dispute as raised in the relevant Title Suit No.135 of 1954. The said Revenue Authority referred to the judgment passed in connection with the same. In such critical analysis as made by the concerned Revenue Authority, there is, no doubt, reference of the various provisions of law relating to acquisition of lands and retention of the same. But here, in the contempt jurisdiction, we do not find that there is any rational justification for getting into the same. The relevant observation of the said Revenue Authority, may, however, be of significance. 10. THE same reads as follows: - Considering all the above I am in the view that the writ petitioner, Manorama Maity, may claim for correction of record of rights in respect of 12.96 acres of lands which are found to be retained schedule of the proceeding No. A-SI under Section 6(1) of the West Bengal Estate Acquisition Act and compensation in respect of 20.70 acres of lands for which the compensation roll had been prepared and finally published. Mr. Chatterjee submitted that such order may not be to the choice of the petitioners but it cannot be disputed that the Revenue Authority in compliance with the direction of the learned Division Bench of this court passed a reasoned order. According to Mr. Chatterjee, the contempt application thus cannot have any legs to stand upon. Mr. Chatterjee referred to the decision of the Apex Court in the case between Kapildeo Prasad Sah and Ors. According to Mr. Chatterjee, the contempt application thus cannot have any legs to stand upon. Mr. Chatterjee referred to the decision of the Apex Court in the case between Kapildeo Prasad Sah and Ors. vs State of Bihar and Ors., as reported in (1999) 7 SCC 569 . This was in the context of his submission that initiation of contempt proceeding is not a substitute for execution proceeding though at times that purpose may also be achieved. 11. NO doubt, power to punish for contempt is to be resorted to when there is clear violation of the courts order. Power to punish for contempt is for the maintenance of effective legal system. It is exercised to prevent perversion of the course of justice. Jurisdiction to punish for contempt exists to provide ultimate sanction against the person who refuses to comply a courts order or disregards the order continuously. NO person can defy courts order. The Apex Court in the said case of Kapildeo Prasad Sah (supra) observed that wilful would exclude casual, accidental bona fide or unintentional acts of genuine inability to comply with the terms of the order. A petitioner who complains breach of the courts order must allege deliberate or contumacious disobedience of the courts order. In order to succeed, it is for the applicants to show that there has been wilful disobedience of the judgment and order of this court. It cannot be denied that whether disobedience is deliberate and wilful in a particular case depends on the facts and circumstances of that case. Judicial orders are to be properly understood and complied with. 12. THE order of the Division Bench under reference is clear and unambiguous. It was not even suggested that such order left anything untold. There was nothing left for interpretation or imagination. The words and the expressions in the said order are direct thereby making the communication effective. There could be no scope for ambiguity nor any such plea had been raised. The question that next arises as to whether the Revenue Authority by order dated 24th March, 2006 really complied with the direction of this court. Unfortunately, we find it extremely difficult, if not impossible, to accept the stand of the alleged contemnors as ventilated by learned Counsel Mr. Chatterjee in this regard. The question that next arises as to whether the Revenue Authority by order dated 24th March, 2006 really complied with the direction of this court. Unfortunately, we find it extremely difficult, if not impossible, to accept the stand of the alleged contemnors as ventilated by learned Counsel Mr. Chatterjee in this regard. In view of clear finding of the Division Bench and the categorical direction, practically nothing was left for the alleged contemnors for any further analysis of the facts and the related provisions of law. The entire effort thus unconsciously reflects the subconscious mind of the concerned Revenue Authority. And, such mind only speaks of one language and that is, to stick to the earlier stand of the authorities without paying due regard to the direction of the court. In our opinion, alleged contemnors thus clearly violated the order of this court and such violation was wilful and deliberate. The alleged contemnors thus cannot be permitted to wash their hands-of. Mr. Chatterjee further submitted that if the applicants are not satisfied with the relevant order of the concerned Revenue Authority, it could at best embolden them to file a fresh writ application. In response to this, Mr. Sahoo quite rightly contended that the suggestion is rather preposterous. After due consideration of all relevant facts and materials, we have no hesitation to hold that the present petitioners have succeeded to establish and that too, to the satisfaction of the judicial conscience of the court, that the contemnors willfully disobeyed and deliberately flouted this courts order dated 11th of September, 2002 passed in W.P.L.R.T. No.687 of 2001. 13. THE contemnors are hereby directed to appear in court after 8 weeks. Contemnors are thus given an opportunity of hearing in regard to further order of the court.