Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 826 (GAU)

Lalsangliana & Ors. v. Anil Vinwas & Ors.

2014-08-29

T.VAIPHEI

body2014
1. Having heard Mr. Michael Zothankhuma, the learned senior counsel for the petitioners, and Mr. A.H. Barbhuiya, the learned CGC, appearing for all the respondents, the sole question which falls for consideration in this contempt petition at this stage is whether there is prima facie case of willful disobedience to or violation of the directions contained in the judgment and order dated 3.3.2011 passed by this court in WP(C) No. 8 of 2010 by the respondents. 2. This genesis of the case relates-back to the order dated 7.1.2009 passed by this court in WP(C) No. 62 of 2007, which is in the following terms: “From the facts involved and the stand taken by the respondent Nos. 1 to 4 and the attendant circumstances, it is thought appropriate to issue a direction for constitution of a joint team of the Union as well as the State for verification of occupation of private lands including the lands of the petitioners with the following members: (i) Director (NE-II), Ministry of Home Affairs or his representatives, (ii) Defence Estate Officer, Gauhati Circle or his representative. (iii) Secretary to the Government of Mizoram, Department of Revenue and (iv) Concerned Deputy Commissioner/Collector. 8. The joint team of officers so to be constituted shall verify the occupation of private lands including the land of the writ petitioners and shall furnish all details to the appropriate authority(s) for sanction of the required funds for the purpose of payment of rental compensation for occupation of lands, buildings, etc. "10. (sic) The exercise of joint spot verification shall be completed within a period of three months from the date of receipt of this order arid, thereafter, another three months for making the claim and payment.” 3. The petitioners, however, preferred Review Petition No. 1 of 2009 before this court praying for deleting the words "including the lands" occurring in paragraphs 7 and 8 of the aforesaid judgment, which was allowed by this court by the order dated 27.3.2009. In compliance with the directions of this court, the Commissioner/Secretary, Revenue Department, Govt. of Mizoram, after meeting the joint team officers constituted the Task Force to conduct spot verification of the lands of the petitioners occupied by the Security Forces at Kawmzawl, Lunglei comprising of the Deputy Commissioner, Lunglei, CO, 40th Assam Rifles, Lunglei, Defence Estate Officer, Guwahati and others. In compliance with the directions of this court, the Commissioner/Secretary, Revenue Department, Govt. of Mizoram, after meeting the joint team officers constituted the Task Force to conduct spot verification of the lands of the petitioners occupied by the Security Forces at Kawmzawl, Lunglei comprising of the Deputy Commissioner, Lunglei, CO, 40th Assam Rifles, Lunglei, Defence Estate Officer, Guwahati and others. The Task Force after making spot verification found the claim of 3 petitioners out of the 23 petitioners to be genuine and correct; the lands of the remaining petitioners were found to be beyond the blueprint area prepared in 1992-93 even though, according to the petitioners, the lands of many of the petitioners were in the occupation of the Security Forces. 4. Aggrieved by the findings of the Task Force restricting their verifications to the lands located within the blueprint area made in 1992-93, another, 25 of the petitioners including the petitioners herein once again filed WP(C) No. 8 of 2010 praying for constituting a Joint Verification Team to verify whether the lands of the petitioners lying outside the blueprint area made in 1992-93 had been occupied by the Security Forces. This court by the judgment dated 3.3.2011 disposed of the writ petition with the following directions: “Taking note of the facts involved in this writ petition, the contention of the respondents in their counter-affidavit and minutes recorded on para 3.4 of the meeting held on 17.7.2009 in particular this court finds it reasonable and appropriate to direct constitution of a joint verification team for re-verification of the lands of the petitioners whether such lands falls under the occupation of the armed forces or not. Mr. Michael Zothankhuma and learned CGC, Mr. B. Pathak agee to with the joint team of officers directed to be constituted by this court while disposing of WP(C) No. 62 of 2007 vide order dated 7.1.2009, which would serve the purpose. The joint team so constituted shall make spot verification in respect of the lands of the petitioners herein to ascertain whether their lands are under the occupation of army or not. While making spot verification all the petitioners shall remain present with their land documents. Such verification shall be completed within a period of 3 (three) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment and order. While making spot verification all the petitioners shall remain present with their land documents. Such verification shall be completed within a period of 3 (three) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment and order. If the petitioners land, during spot verification, are found in occupation of the army, respondent authorities shall taken appropriate steps for payment of rental compensation on and from the date of occupation.” 5. In compliance with the aforesaid directions of this court, another joint team of officers comprising of the representatives of the State Government and the Central Government to carry out comprehensive hi-tech Total Station re-survey of Kawmzawl area so that the actual area under occupation of Para-military Forces/Assam Rifles is ascertained and the genuine land owners falling within the occupied area are identified. After carrying out spot verifications as per map approved and counter-signed by representatives of the Home Ministry and Defence Ministry, the team found that the lands of the petitioners had been occupied by the Armed forces from 1967 till 31.8.1986, and the rental compensation payable to the petitioners herein by the Ministry of Home Affairs was assessed by the Deputy Commissioner/Lunglei district at Rs. 3,08,05,168. The letter dated 5.6.2013 of the Deputy, Commissioner/ Lunglei district addressed to the Principal Secretary to the Government of Mizoram together with the minutes of the meeting of the Joint Verification Team and the assessment of rental charges payable by the Ministry of Home Affairs with copies to all the respondents herein are annexed to the contempt petition. 6. The Director (NE-II), Ministry of Home Affairs by his letter dated 26.6.2013, however, asked the Deputy Secretary, Revenue Department, Government of Mizoram to verify the case and certify whether the petitioners had been paid the rental compensation out of the amount released by the Government in 1995 pursuant to the direction of this court. The Deputy Commissioner, Lunglei district thereafter issued the certificate dated 17.12.2013 certifying that the petitioners herein had not been paid any rental compensation of the fund released by the Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India in 1995 or thereafter, liven after, no payment has been made to the petitioners till now, which prompted them file this contempt petition. The contention of the petitioners is that the respondent Nos. The contention of the petitioners is that the respondent Nos. 1 to 3 have knowingly and willfully violated the directions of this court and are, therefore, punishable under section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. 7. In answer to the contempt petition, affidavits have been separately filed by Shri Anil Goswamy, Home Secretary, Govt. of India, Shri J.P.N. Singh, Director, Ministry of Home Affairs, Govt. of India and Shri Ramesh Kumar Rana, Director General, Assam Rifles, who shall be formally impleaded as the respondent No. 1, respondent No. 2 and respondent No. 3, respectively in place of the original respondents, whose names shall stand deleted as party-respondents hereafter. The Registry shall accordingly make necessary and consequential corrections in the cause title. Their affidavits are carefully perused by me with the assistance of the learned CGC. The common contentions of the respondents in their respective affidavits are that the joint verification carried out on 2.5.2013 was done without hi-tech equipments; that the minutes of the meeting were prepared by the district civil administration without even consulting the representatives of the Assam Rifles; that the decisions/recommendations as mentioned in the minutes were not discussed and were prepared and forwarded to the higher HQ by them with the attendance sheet instead of a -signed copy, a fact duly admitted by the Deputy Commissioner, Lunglei, that no evidence/proof has been submitted by the individuals while the lands recommended were outside the blueprint area and that the request made by the Director (NE-II), Ministry of Home Affairs to verify the claim in the background of the facts mentioned in paragraphs 2 and 3 was not done by the civil administration: only the said certificate dated 17.12.2013 was forwarded. 8, It is also the common contention of the answering respondents that the Ministry of Home Affairs has requested the State Government to have a fresh look and forward fresh claims, only in respect of those in whose case land was found to be occupied/used by the Security Forces after consultation with the Assam Rifles on 26.12.2013 vide the letter dated 26.12.2013 and that since then some fifteen letters/reminders starting from their dated 26.6.2013 to dated 7.7:2014 have been sent to the State Government over the same issue, but State Government is yet to forward fresh claims; the delay is on the part of the State Government, whose officials are not even made party-respondents. According to the answering respondents, the Government of India in the Ministry of Home Affairs has already released a sum of Rs. 29,25,930 directly to the Government of Mizoram for payment to the petitioner No. 17 (Mr. Vanlalsanga) for the period from 1.1.1967 to 31st August, 1986 through the Deputy Commissioner Lunglei vide the letter dated 27.3.2014. It is, therefore, submitted by the answering respondents that there is no violation of the directions of this court and that the contempt proceedings against them should be dropped. 9. The various contentions advanced by the learned counsel appearing for the rival parties have been taken note of. The undisputed facts on record are that the first judgment and order dated 7.1.2009 in WP(C) No. 62 of 2007 directing the constitution of a joint team comprising of the Union of India and the State Government for verification of the occupation of the lands of the petitioners as well as the findings of the Joint Team/Task Force was never challenged by the Union of India and others and have, insofar as they are concerned, attained finality. Similarly, the assessment of rental compensation made by the Deputy Commissioner, Lunglei district payable to the petitioners herein amounting to Rs. 3,08,05,168 in terms of the directions made by this court in the second judgment dated 3.3.2011 in WP(C) No. 8 of 2010 was neither challenged nor objected to by the Union of India and others before this court or the appellate court. Moreover, the spot, verification was conducted in the presence of the representatives of the Union of India and the Assam Rifles, who duly signed the minutes of the meeting of the joint verification team. The findings of the Joint Team/Task Force and the rental assessments so made, in the absence of objection made by the respondents in time, stood merged with the judgment and order of this court, which has now attained finality. 10. At this stage, I may refer to the legal positions concerning the law of contempt. Disobedience of orders of the court strikes at the very root of the rule of law on which the judicial system rests. The rule of law is the foundation of a democratic society. The judiciary is the guardian of the rule of law. 10. At this stage, I may refer to the legal positions concerning the law of contempt. Disobedience of orders of the court strikes at the very root of the rule of law on which the judicial system rests. The rule of law is the foundation of a democratic society. The judiciary is the guardian of the rule of law. If the judicial is to perform its duties and functions effectively and remain true to the spirit with which it is sacredly entrusted, the dignity and authority of the courts have to be respected and protected at all costs. Every person is required to respect and obey the orders of the court with due dignity for the institution. The Government departments are no exception to it. The departments or instrumentalities of the State must act expeditiously as per orders of the court and if such orders postulate any schedule, then it must be adhered to. See Maninderjit Singh Bitta v. Union of India, (2012) 1 SCC 273 . In Anil Ratan Sarkar v. Hirak Ghosh, (2002) 4 SCC 21 , the Apex Court held that disobedience of a clear and unambiguous order of a court, which is not capable of more than one interpretation, would amount to contempt of court. 11. In K.A. Ansari and Another v. Indian Airlines Ltd., (2009) 2 SCC 164 , the Apex Court observed that difficulty in implementation of court’s order, howsoever, grave its effect may be, is no answer to its implementation. If there was any doubt or if the order was not clear, it was open to the officials to approach the court for clarification. Without challenging the said direction or seeking clarification, authorities could hot circumvent the same on any ground whatsoever. Again, in Prithawi Nath Ram v. State of Jharkhand and Others, (2004) 7 SCC 261 , the Apex Court held that while dealing with an application for contempt, the court is really concerned with the question whether the earlier decision which has received its finality had been complied with or not. It would not be possible for a court to examine the correctness of the earlier decision which had not been assailed and to take a view different than what was taken in the earlier decision. It would not be possible for a court to examine the correctness of the earlier decision which had not been assailed and to take a view different than what was taken in the earlier decision. If any party aggrieved by the order which in its opinion is wrong or against the rules or its implementation is neither practicable nor feasible, it should approach the court which has passed the order or invoke the jurisdiction of the appellate court. Rightness or wrongness of the order cannot be urged in contempt proceedings. Right or wrong, the order has to be obeyed. Flouting an order 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 the correctness or otherwise of the order or give an additional direction or delete any direction. That would be exercising review jurisdiction while dealing with an application for initiation of contempt proceedings. The same would be impermissible and indefensible. 12. Where an order protecting daily wage earners from displacement has been passed and is in operation, the court cannot be invited to embark upon an exercise of ascertaining whether they were genuine or not and the contention that the court would subsequently conclude that the petitioner's claim is baseless and the order would be eventually vacated, cannot be entertained - see Shamboo v. H.L. Prasad, 2003 (6) ILD 307. On the contention of the learned CGC that the State Government is not impleaded as party respondents, impleading them cannot be demanded inasmuch as they have complied with the order of this court, and the petitioners have no grievance against them. In my tentative opinion, the issues raised by the respondents now are barred by constructive res judicata. On the contrary, I have the sneaking suspicion that the respondents are deliberately playing cat and mouse game with the order of this court. In the view that I have taken, I am satisfied that the petitioners have made out a prima case for taking cognizance of the contumacious conducts on the part of the respondents. 13. Let a notice be issued upon the newly impleaded respondent Nos. In the view that I have taken, I am satisfied that the petitioners have made out a prima case for taking cognizance of the contumacious conducts on the part of the respondents. 13. Let a notice be issued upon the newly impleaded respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 3 to show-cause as to why they shall not punished for violation of the directions contained in the judgment and order dated 3.3.2011 passed by this court in WP(C) No. 8 of 2010 returnable on 26.9.2014. The three respondents shall also personally appear before this court on the same day at 10.30 a.m. to answer the charges being framed against them. The Registry will take steps by registered posts with A/D cards in accordance with the form of notice prescribed by the annexure to Contempt of Courts (Gauhati High Court) Rules, 1977. Nothing stated in the foregoing shall be construed as final observations on the merit of the contempt petition, which is yet to be heard.