Research › Search › Judgment

J&K High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 205 (JK)

Khem Raj v. Jameet Raj

2012-04-30

Sanjay Gupta

body2012
1. This contempt petition has been filed by petitioners, against the respondent on the grounds that, this Court vide Order dt. 28.9.2010,directed parties to maintain statusquo with regard to land measuring 9 kanals 17 marlas lying under Khasra No. 19 min/310 situated at village Jagatpur Tehsil and district Kathua. 2. It has further been stated that, petitioners applied to Tehsildar Kathua for service of this order, as respondent started raising construction on spot. That petitioners requested Tehsildar to serve this order through Police Post Industrial Estate Kathua. That Tehsildar Kathua was pleased to get the order dt. 28.9.2010, served through Police upon respondent. That, the respondent refused to accept the order and despite its knowledge, raised construction and put lintel on room. That respondent was aware of order of this Court as his counsel has also appeared on 12.10.2010. 3. Respondent appeared and filed the objections. In objection he denied service of order. Respondent further stated that he put lintel on room much prior to passing of order of statusquo. That respondent is law abiding citizen of India. 4. After filing of objection respondent did not appear and petitioner was directed to lead evidence. 5. Petitioner Khem Raj in his statement stated that, on land under Kh No. 310,measuring 9 kanals 17 marlas situated at Jagatpur, Jameet Raj has constructed house, whereas he has obtained a stay order from court. Police also informed the respondent about the stay. Despite informed by Police, non applicant put the lintel on house. 6. He has also produced photographs of spot. 7. PW Satpal stated that, he does not know name of the petitioner. He does not know respondent. He does not remember month and year. He was engaged as labour along with tractor. They went towards Jagat pur. Police had come there and stopped the work. Who was constructing, he does not know. However petitioner was not constructing. He does not know the Khasra no. Construction was being carried on 10 marlas of land. He does not know as to whether any case is pending with regards to land. 8. PW Balbir Singh stated that petitioner is his mohalladar. He knows respondent m, who is resident of Rajouri. He has seen land under dispute. Land is 9 Kanals 17 marala under Kh. No. 19/310 and is situated at jagat pur. He has also land there. On 7.12.2010, respondent continued construction despite stay order. 8. PW Balbir Singh stated that petitioner is his mohalladar. He knows respondent m, who is resident of Rajouri. He has seen land under dispute. Land is 9 Kanals 17 marala under Kh. No. 19/310 and is situated at jagat pur. He has also land there. On 7.12.2010, respondent continued construction despite stay order. Thereafter petitioner went to Police Station and work was got stopped. Thereafter holiday came and respondent also worked. Petitioners have obtained stay from Court of Kathua. He does not know from which Court or Office stay was obtained. He did not see any document of stay. He has not seen the document of land. He does not know as to whether respondent was constructing on 28.9.2010 or not. 9. I have heard counsel for petitioners and evidence. 10. Main revision has already been decided on 29.9.2011.Contempt Proceeding is always between court and alleged contemnor. It is punitive in nature, if contempt is proved. So a higher decree of proofs is required. 11. For proving contempt, firstly it must be established that, order was served and contemnor was having knowledge of same. Date of violation and passing of order is crucial and important for deciding the contempt. 12. In present case order of status quo has been issued on 28.8.2010. Copy of order was forwarded to Add. Deputy Commissioner for necessary action. There is application and report Police of Police post Industrial Estate kathua dt. 29.9.2010, which reveals that work was got stopped and respondent refused to accept the order. So for proving contempt, applicants were to prove that, contemnor violated court order by raising construction on spot after execution of order on 29.9.2010. 13. In present case no date of violating court order has been given in application, as well in statement of petitioner khem Raj. In statement a general averment with regard to rising of construction despite stay order, has been narrated, with out mentioning specific date month and year. Similarly Pw. Sat pal has not narrated any date of construction. Whereas, Pw. Balbir Singh has mentioned date of construction as 7.12. 2010, in his statement, which is not corroborated by any independent evidence. In this way petitioners have not produced reliable proofs. 14. In view of what has been discussed above, Petitioners have failed to produce any evidence with regard to this application, which is accordingly dismissed. File to go on record after compilation.