Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 1998 (RAJ)

Ram Karan v. Raesh Ahmed

2018-09-28

ALOK SHARMA

body2018
JUDGMENT Alok Sharma, J. - Contempt of the interim order dated 04.04.2001 as confirmed on 14.07.2006 is alleged in this petition. Thereunder it was directed by the court the "status quo" be maintained. 2. An order of the status quo is very amorphous and has to be grounded in and construed in the context of the underlying dispute. Counsel for the contesting parties admit that the dispute in SBCWP No.1445/2001 wherein the order of "status quo" in question was passed, arose in the background of a suit for declaration of khatedari rights partition and injunction under Section 88 and 188 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955. 3. Reverting to the facts relevant to this contempt petition, during the pendency of the SBCWP No.1445/2001 against the judgement of the Board of Revenue arising from the suit for declaration, partition and injunction referred to above, Mst.Gulab the respondent No.4 expired. Based on her will dated 13.03.2008 Mangi Lal was entered in the revenue records as her successor Khatedar. This mutation entry is alleged in this contempt petition as contempt of the Court's order dated 14.07.2006 in SBCWP No.1445/2001. 4. Mr. Raghvendra Singh, counsel for the petitioner submitted that the order of status quo dated 04.04.2001 as affirmed on 14.07.2006 was absolute, all transactions/variation in respect of the land in dispute including even mutation following the death of one of the parties was injuncted by the Court. He submitted that despite the said injunction/ restrain under the confirmed stay order dated 14.07.2006 the mutation was done in the revenue records allowing for substitution of Mangi Lal for Gulab. That constitutes contempt, it is submitted. 5. Mr. Lokesh Sharma appearing for the private respondents and Mr. Dharmendra Pareek, Addl. GC. for the respondent-State submitted that the interim order of the status quo passed on 04.04.2001 as confirmed on 14.07.2006 cannot be construed at large but only contextually and would relate to the underlying dispute before this court. The status quo order of this Court thus related to a suit for declaration and partition. As such it would relate to a restrain on the alienation transfer or encumbrance of Khatedari rights only-all by way of a transaction inter-parties. The order of status quo in issue would have no relation whatsoever with the mutation following the death of one of the parties-the Court was not at all seized of such an issue. As such it would relate to a restrain on the alienation transfer or encumbrance of Khatedari rights only-all by way of a transaction inter-parties. The order of status quo in issue would have no relation whatsoever with the mutation following the death of one of the parties-the Court was not at all seized of such an issue. It has been submitted that even otherwise a mutation is only a fiscal entry not affecting the proprietary rights of the parties. Mr. Dharmendra Pareek further submitted that Tehsildar, Mozmabad who made the mutation entry in issue was transferred to the Mozmabad only in 2014 and at that time the application for mutation was made and allowed on the basis of the will of the deceased Mst.Gulab, was not made aware of the Court's order. And no sooner the order dated 14.07.2006 was brought to his notice he required appropriate noting in the revenue records which has since been made. 6. Having heard counsel for the parties, in the facts of the case, I am of the considered view that the contempt of the "status quo" order dated 14.07.2006 as alleged is not made out. The offending mutation entry is a consequence of the right of Mangilal flowing from the will dated 13.03.2008 executed by respondent Gulab, now deceased. The issue of testamentary succession is not a subject of SBCWP No.1445/2001 where the order of "status quo" of which contempt is alleged was passed. 7. In the facts of the case, I find no ground to find any contempt as alleged. The contempt petition is accordingly dismissed. Notices are discharged.