Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 700 (PAT)

Suresh Kumar Singh v. State of Bihar

2014-06-24

RAKESH KUMAR

body2014
ORDER : Rakesh Kumar, J. 1. Sri Arbind Kumar Singh, Collector, Kaimur at Bhabhua is personally present in court in view of earlier orders passed by this court. 2. Heard Sri T.N. Maitin, learned senior counsel, who was assisted by Sri Radha Mohan Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Prabhat Kumar Verma, learned Additional Advocate General No. 5, who has appeared on behalf of the contemnor. 3. It is a glaring example of disobedience shown to the order passed by the writ court long back in the year 2009. The petitioner, who was a serving military personnel had approached this court by filing a writ petition vide C.W.J.C. No. 10516 of 2007 with a prayer to quash an order dated 12.6.2006 passed by the Collector at Kaimur at Bhabhua. By the said order proposal for settlement of 1.63 Acres land of mauza Kanhua of Khata No. 151, Plot No. 209 in favour of the petitioner was rejected. In the said writ petition the respondents had appeared and filed their response and thereafter this court by its order dated 21.4.2009 allowed the writ petition. It would be appropriate to quote order dated 21.4.2009 passed in C.W.J.C. No. 10516 of 2007, which is quoted herein below:- "Heard the counsel for the petitioner and the counsel appearing for the state. Counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondent-state and reply of the same has also been filed on behalf of the petitioner. Prayer of the petitioner is for quashing the order dated 12.6.2006 passed by the Collector, Kaimur at Bhabhua whereby proposal for settlement of 1.63 acres of land of Mauja Kanhua of Khata No. 151, Plot No. 209 in favour of the petitioner who is a serving military personnel, has been rejected. This is the second time when the petitioner has come before this court for same relief. Earlier the petitioner had filed C.W.J.C. No. 4204 of 2004 which was disposed of with a direction to the respondents to pass final order of settlement in favour of the petitioner within three months as recommendation for settlement of this land in favour of the petitioner had been made in Settlement Case No. 12 of 2003-04 by the Circle Officer on 20.06.2003. Despite recommendation in favour of the petitioner, following all procedures, the final settlement order was not being passed. Despite recommendation in favour of the petitioner, following all procedures, the final settlement order was not being passed. This was the reason that the petitioner approached this court by filing C.W.J.C. No. 4204 of 2004. In spite of direction of the High Court in the writ application, the matter remained pending, as such, the petitioner filed MJC No. 829/06. In the MJC, finally show cause was filed on behalf of the contemnor - authorities disclosing the fact that by order dated 12.06.2006, the prayer of the petitioner for settlement of the land has been rejected. The contempt proceeding was disposed of giving liberty to the petitioner to challenge the impugned order. Petitioner has challenged the impugned order on the ground that it has been passed maliciously by the respondents-authorities for the reason that the petitioner approached High Court by filing writ application and also filed a Contempt case on account of non-compliance of the direction of this court. Since the petitioner approached the High Court, the respondents became adamant not to settle the land in favour of the petitioner and made all efforts in this regard. The then Sub Divisional Officer, Mohania specifically directed to the Circle Officer for sending such report that settlement cannot be made in favour of the petitioner. In support of this contention, the petitioner has annexed entire order sheet of Settlement Case. From the order sheet, it transpires that Settlement Case was initiated in the year, 2003. By order dated 20.6.2003, favourable recommendation was made in favour of the petitioner by the Circle Officer, Mohania. In the recommendation, it is stated that there is no legal ground for rejecting the application. Petitioner's prayer for settlement of land is in consonance with the Govt. provisions and there is no objection from any quarter. The nature of land being ANABAD SARVSADHARAN" can be settled in favour of the petitioner. Subsequently, when the writ application was filed, the first change was made in recommendation whereby the area of land which was earlier recommended in settlement for an area of 1.63 acres was reduced to 0.98 and ¾ acres. No reason has been shown for this change. This recommendation was also not found in favour by the Sub Divisional Officer, Mohania and by order dated 06.01.2006, he remitted back the record to the Circle Officer wherein seven points' inquiry was made. No reason has been shown for this change. This recommendation was also not found in favour by the Sub Divisional Officer, Mohania and by order dated 06.01.2006, he remitted back the record to the Circle Officer wherein seven points' inquiry was made. This inquiry was replied by the Circle Officer on 20.01.2006. It was stated that there is no reason for not settling the land. The Sub Divisional Officer, thereafter, again remitted the matter back making another query. This was repeated continuously till the date, the Circle Officer made a report stating that the land cannot be settled with the petitioner as during the Consolidation proceeding, out of the concerned plot, a CHAK has been prepared which is earmarked for public purposes. In the counter affidavit, only reason for rejecting the claim of the petitioner is that the land in question has been declared a CHAK useful for public purposes. The order sheet is indicative of the fact that how maliciously the respondents have proceeded with the matter. Same land which was earlier recommended in the year, 2003 making query on all relevant points including the CHAK Panj prepared during consolidation proceeding, suddenly, after disposal of the writ application and MJC application was shown as land not proper for settlement. Entire matter was reversed. The respondents-authorities specifically, the then Sub Divisional Officer, Mohania and the then Collector, Kaimur at Bhabhua were bent upon to teach the petitioner a lesson for approaching the High Court. Finally, they succeeded by passing the impugned order rejecting claim of the petitioner. Most surprising aspect of this case is that part of same plot, which in case of petitioners is said to be declared a Chak earmarked for public purposes, has already been settled to other military personnel. No such objection was raised in his case. It is a matter of record and has been discussed in the reports of the Circle Officer. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the impugned order dated 12.6.2006 passed by the Collector, Kaimur at Bhabhua in Settlement Case No. 12 of 2003-04 rejecting proposal for settlement of land to the petitioner is quashed. It is a matter of record and has been discussed in the reports of the Circle Officer. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the impugned order dated 12.6.2006 passed by the Collector, Kaimur at Bhabhua in Settlement Case No. 12 of 2003-04 rejecting proposal for settlement of land to the petitioner is quashed. Respondents No. 2, 3 and 4 are directed to settle the lands of Mauja, Kanhua, Khata No. 151 Plot No. 209 measuring 1.63 decimals in favour of the petitioner on the basis of recommendation made in faovur of the petitioner by the Circle Officer, Mohania vide his recommendation order dated 20.6.2003. The final settlement order observing all formalities must be issued by the respondents within one month from the date of production/communication of this order. Copy of the order be communicated to the Chief Secretary, Government of Bihar for taking proper action against the then Sub Divisional Officer, Mohania and the Collector, Kaimur at Bhabhua for the reason that the impugned order shows their arbitrariness and vindictive approach. This application is, accordingly, allowed." 4. On perusal of the aforesaid order it is evident that writ court has passed order in two parts. In first part specific direction was given to the respondent no. 2, 3 and 4 Collector, Kaimur at Bhabhua, Deputy Collector Land Reforms, Mohania and Anchal Adhikari Nuawaon, Kaimur respectively for settling lands of Mauza Kanhau, Khata No. 151, Plot No. 209 measuring 1.63 decimals in favour of petitioner of writ petition on the basis of recommendation made in his favour by Circle Officer, Mohania vide his recommendation dated 20.6.2003. This court while hearing the writ petition had also noticed malicious action of the Sub Divisional Officer, Mohania as well as the then Collector, Kaimur at Bhabhua, and as such, in the 2nd part of the order this court directed the Chief Secretary, Government of Bihar for taking proper action against the then Sub Divisional Officer, Mohania and the Collector, Kaimur at Bhabhua for the reasons that impugned order shown their arbitrariness and vindictive approach. 5. It has been submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that after the order passed by the writ court the petitioner also filed an application before the Collector, Kaimur at Bhabhua immediately thereafter for taking immediate action. 5. It has been submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that after the order passed by the writ court the petitioner also filed an application before the Collector, Kaimur at Bhabhua immediately thereafter for taking immediate action. Of-course order for settling the land within a period of one month was passed in the year 2009, since no action was taken by the authority concerned the petitioner was lastly constrained to approach this court by filing the present petition which was filed on 23.7.2009. The present petition was filed under Article 215 of the Constitution of India read with Section 12 of the Contempt of Court Act. 6. Even after filing of the present contempt petition in the year 2012 to the reasons best known to the authority concerned, no action was taken and frivolous grounds were taken due to which hearing in the present petition got deferred on several dates. On 24.4.2014 this court had noticed that though direction was given to the settle land measuring 1.63 Acres the authorities had thereafter taken decision to settle 0.80 Acres in favour of the petitioner instead of 1.63 Acres as was directed by the writ court. This court also noticed that order passed by the writ court had neither been reviewed, modified or set aside and as such the grounds taken by learned counsel for the State justifying the stand was not accepted. This court observed in its order dated 24.4.2014 that this court prima facie finds that opposite parties have committed contempt, however the matter was deferred to 28th April, 2014. On 28.4.2014 learned state counsel submitted that the order not having been reviewed, modified or set aside is required to be complied with and short time was sought for filing appropriate show cause. This court reiterated that contempt stand committed. Again the matter was directed to be listed on 15th May, 2014 on which date order passed by the writ court was noticed again as not complied with and displeasure was also recorded by this court and case was adjourned. On further assurance for complying the order, the case was directed to be listed on 23rd June 2014 with an indication to file show cause showing full compliance of order passed in the writ petition failing which the Collector, Kaimur was directed to remain personally present in court. On 23.6.2014 the Collector was present in court. On further assurance for complying the order, the case was directed to be listed on 23rd June 2014 with an indication to file show cause showing full compliance of order passed in the writ petition failing which the Collector, Kaimur was directed to remain personally present in court. On 23.6.2014 the Collector was present in court. However, submission was made that show cause was going to be filed and the case was directed to be listed for today. 7. In this case 5th supplementary show cause has been filed on behalf of opposite party no. 2/Collector, Kaimur, opposite party no. 3/D.C.L.R., Mohania and opposite party No. 4/Circle Officer Nuaon. Of-course 5th supplementary show cause has been filed and it was expected that this time at least cause will be shown that order of the writ court has been complied with in its letter and spirit, but still same has not been done and a plea has been taken that the Collector has now recommended for settlement. Besides this, one shocking fact has been incorporated in the supplementary show cause that the State has preferred a Review petition for reviewing order passed by the writ court which was passed long back on 21.4.2009. For filing a review petition of-course as per limitation act period prescribed is thirty days. The Review petition as apparent from the 5th supplementary show cause was affidavited on 8/5/2014, i.e. after the date when this court had recorded a finding that opposite parties had committed contempt due to non compliance of order passed by the writ court in the year 2009. It is also surprising that in such a case where this court earlier had held that opposite parties have committed contempt, the Collector has not bothered to swear affidavit in respect of averment made in the 5th supplementary show cause, rather the Circle Officer was authorised to swear affidavit on his behalf. This shows that the Collector has got no respect either for the court or order passed by this court. In any event fact remains that land measuring 1.63 Acres has not been settled in favour of the petitioner, whereas, the writ court had prescribed maximum period of one month for settling the same. This shows that the Collector has got no respect either for the court or order passed by this court. In any event fact remains that land measuring 1.63 Acres has not been settled in favour of the petitioner, whereas, the writ court had prescribed maximum period of one month for settling the same. There is nothing on record to suggest that opposite parties had earlier ever made a prayer for extension of time for implementing the order of the writ court nor even in the 5th supplementary show cause such averment has been made. Only it has been indicated that the Collector now has made recommendation for settlement that too by an order passed on 6.6.2014, which is part of review petition. Copy of review petition has been brought on record vide Annexure - B to the show cause. 8. If an order is passed by the writ court and direction is issued to the respondent authorities, there is no option but to implement the order or if the authorities are not satisfied with the order they may assail the order before the larger bench, or before the superior court. In any event, no one can sit tight over the orders passed by a court. 9. From the order of the writ court also it is evident that the authorities concerned were adamant not to settle the land in favour of the petitioner and all those action and inactions were noticed by the writ court and finally, after hearing the parties the writ court had allowed the writ petition. Since after expiry of such a long time and after giving much indulgence by this court till date finally land measuring 1.63 Acres in compliance with the writ court order has not been settled with the petitioner, the court is of the opinion that the Collector namely Sri Arvind Kumar Singh has committed serious contempt of court and disobedience to the order passed by the writ court. Accordingly he is held guilty for committing disobedience and disrespect to the order passed on 21.4.2009 in C.W.J.C. No. 10516 of 2007 by this court. 10. The Collector is present in court and he states that he has been posted as Collector at this particular place since January, 2013. Accordingly he is held guilty for committing disobedience and disrespect to the order passed on 21.4.2009 in C.W.J.C. No. 10516 of 2007 by this court. 10. The Collector is present in court and he states that he has been posted as Collector at this particular place since January, 2013. He submits that after joining the post as Collector in the month of January, 2013 and after noticing the fact regarding the present case he had taken sincere effort to implement the order of this court. Since the order was passed in the year 2009 and same has been not implemented till date, in this case all the Collectors who were posted after the order passed by the writ court till the present Collector joined the post are required to be noticed for further order. 11. Learned Additional Advocate General No. 5 is required to furnish name and address of all such officers by filing appropriate affidavit within a period of four weeks. In respect of 2nd part of the order i.e. the direction issued to the Chief Secretary, it is desirable to grant an opportunity to learned A.A.G. No. 5 to obtain instruction from the Chief Secretary on the point as to what step he has taken in compliance with the order passed by the writ court. In clear terms the writ court while disposing of the writ petition had directed the Chief Secretary, Government of Bihar to take proper action against the then Sub Divisional Officer, Mohania and Collector, Kaimur at Bhabhua. The Chief Secretary is required to file his appropriate show cause. 12. Learned counsel for the petitioner is permitted to implead Chief Secretary, Government of Bihar as opposite party no. 6. 13. The Collector further takes a plea that for settlement of land he is not competent rather decisions are to be taken by the State Government. The Writ petition was allowed in the year 2009 and specific direction was given to Collector, Sub Divisional Officer and C.O. If the Collector was of the opinion that he was not competent to settle the land, in that event, it was necessary on his part to approach this court for modifying the earlier order. Since 2009 till date no such action has been taken, so the plea of the Collector appears to be not sustainable at this juncture. 14. Since 2009 till date no such action has been taken, so the plea of the Collector appears to be not sustainable at this juncture. 14. On the point of sentence, I have heard learned senior counsel for the petitioner and learned Addl. Advocate General -5. 15. On the question of sentence learned senior counsel for the petitioner submits that it is glaring case of disobedience to the order passed by this court and as such no lenient view may be taken. On the contrary, Sri Verma, learned A.A.G. -5 submits that it is first instance, which has been considered by this court, whereas, it was not intentional on the part of the Collector and he submits that lenient approach may be taken in the matter. Had it been a case of disobedience shown by an officer occupying lower post, matter would have been different, but since deliberate disobedience has been shown by a person occupying high post, in normal course, lenient view is not required to be taken. Discipline and respect to the court percolates from the act of superior officers. With a view to repose confidence of litigants as well as general people in the judicial system it would be necessary to impose appropriate punishment. However, noticing submissions of learned A.A.G.-5 that it is the first occasion for the present Collector, the court may not impose severe punishment order. It is considered that if the Collector namely Sri Arbind Kumar Singh is taken into custody and sentenced for his imprisonment till the rising of the court it will serve the object. Accordingly, sentence for imprisonment of the Collector Sri Arbind Kumar Singh till rising of the court is hereby passed and the Collector is taken into custody to serve the sentence till rising of the court. 16. In respect of considering the contempt proceeding against others, list this matter under the same heading after four weeks. 17. The convict/Collector/Sri Arbind Kumar Singh will serve the sentence till rising of the court in the office of Registrar General, Patna High Court, Patna.