Research › Search › Judgment

J&K High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 874 (JK)

Bansi Lal v. Vijay Chand Katoch

2018-11-03

DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR

body2018
JUDGMENT : 1. The present petition is one filed under Section 104 of the Constitution of Jammu and Kashmir, invoking the supervisory jurisdiction of this court, against the orders dated 29.10.2016 and 10.3.2017. 2. By virtue of order dated 29.10.2016, the learned Ist Additional District Judge, Jammu dismissed the application, seeking initiation of contempt proceedings for disobedience of order dated 23.2.2015. 3. By virtue of order dated 10.3.2017, which is also impugned in the present petition, the learned Ist Additional District Judge, Jammu also rejected the application filed by the petitioner herein seeking a restraint order against the plaintiffs from withdrawing the rental compensation being paid by the department of agriculture to the plaintiffs. The reason for dismissing the application was that the court had already passed the order dated 29.10.2016 on the issue which the department was under an obligation to comply. 4. Briefly stated the material facts as under: 5. A suit for specific performance was filed by the petitioners against the respondents in the court of Principal Distinct Judge, Jammu wherein it was asserted that defendants were the absolute owners and in possession of land measuring 665 kanals falling under Survey No. 63 and 275 kanals falling under Survey No. 99 situated at Beli Azmat, Tehsil and District Jammu. 6. It was asserted that the defendants in the suit had agreed to alienate the land of the plaintiffs/petitioners herein and therefore, in consequence of that agreement, plaintiff No. 1 purchased 170 kanals of land in consideration of Rs. 2.50 lacs, plaintiff No. 2 purchased 200 kanals in consideration of Rs. 3,30,500/-, plaintiff No. 3 purchased 200 kanals in consideration of Rs. 3,35,000/-, plaintiff No. 4 purchased 170 kanals in consideration of Rs. 2,50,000/- and plaintiff No. 5 purchased 200 kanals in consideration of Rs. 3,35,000/-. 7. It was urged that the land was purchased by virtue of an agreement to sell dated 6.10.2010 executed by the defendants through their attorney holder Sat Pal s/o Beli Ram R/o Gangochak in favour of the plaintiffs. It was also urged that despite the agreement to sell, the defendants did not accede to the request of the plaintiffs to execute the sale deed, hence a suit for specific performance was filed. 8. It was also urged that despite the agreement to sell, the defendants did not accede to the request of the plaintiffs to execute the sale deed, hence a suit for specific performance was filed. 8. The Principal District Judge, Jammu vide judgment and decree dated 20.12.2010 passed a decree for specific performance in regard to agreement to sell dated 6.10.2010 in faovur of the plaintiffs/petitioners herein. The said decree came to be challenged in a suit for declaration by one of the owners, namely, Vijay Chand Katoch, respondent No. 1 herein in the court of learned Ist Additional District Judge, Jammu, which, by way of an interim order dated 1.5.2012, stayed the operation of the impugned judgment and decree dated 20.12.2010. Subsequently, the order dated 1.5.2012 was made absolute by virtue of order dated 8.12.2013. The said order was to remain in operation till the disposal of the main suit. 9. It appears that since the land in question was under the tenancy of the department of Agriculture, some rent used to accrue to the owners in that account. The petitioners herein, proceeded on the premise, that since the suit had only been filed by one of the owners, namely, Vijay Chand Katoch (respondent No. 1 herein), therefore the rent, which was otherwise payable by the department of Agriculture to the other owners, be not paid and the same be protected till the final outcome of the proceedings as they had obtained a decree for specific performance in that regard. 10. The aforesaid application was contested by the respondent No. 1. The court finally by virtue of order dated 23.2.2015 dismissed the same as being without merit for two reasons, firstly that the decree obtained by the petitioners herein was collusive and secondly, that there was no valid document regarding transfer of title over the suit property executed in favour of the petitioners. 11. It was also held that even if a decree for specific performance of contract had been obtained by the defendants/petitioners herein but since no sale deed had actually been executed and registered in their favour, no interest in property could be said to have passed in favour of the defendants/petitioners herein. It was, thus, held that the plaintiff/respondent No. 1 herein had every right to claim and receive rent of the suit land to the extent of his share from the concerned Agriculture Department. 12. It was, thus, held that the plaintiff/respondent No. 1 herein had every right to claim and receive rent of the suit land to the extent of his share from the concerned Agriculture Department. 12. A contempt petition came to be filed by the petitioner No. 1 herein alleging violation of order dated 23.2.2015. It was alleged that even when the court had directed payment of rent only to respondent No. 1 to the extent of his share from the agriculture department yet the department had acted arbitrarily and released rental compensation in regard to property, which did not fall to the share of respondent No. 1 herein. The court after considering the matter observed that the attorney holder of the owners, Harpal Singh had received payment released by the Directorate of Agriculture and the petitioner No. 1 had failed to substantiate as to how the said power of attorney holder was to be debarred from receiving the payment in favour of the land owners. 13. It was held that court vide order dated 23.2.2015 had not restrained the attorney holder to receive the payment of rental compensation and thus held that there was no ground for initiating contempt proceedings against the respondents. Another application was filed by the petitioner herein before the court of Ist Additional District Judge, Jammu, seeking a direction to the Directorate of Agriculture not to pay any rent to the defendants. This application was also dismissed vide order dated 10.3.2017. 14. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 15. The grievance of the petitioners appears to be that the plaintiff-respondent No. 1 herein was only entitled to rental compensation to the extent of his share in the land. Rental compensation in regard to land which fell to the share of the other owners not having filed a civil suit for declaration and not having challenged the decree in question could not have been released either in favour of the plaintiff-respondent No. 1 or to the other owners who were merely Performa respondents in the civil suit filed by respondent No. 1 challenging the decree for specific performance. The plea taken by the counsel for the petitioners appears to be without any basis for the simple reason that all rights, which the petitioners claim, arise on account of the decree for specific performance, which had been obtained by them by virtue of judgment and order dated 20.12.2010. The plea taken by the counsel for the petitioners appears to be without any basis for the simple reason that all rights, which the petitioners claim, arise on account of the decree for specific performance, which had been obtained by them by virtue of judgment and order dated 20.12.2010. Admittedly, the operation of the said judgment and decree had been stayed in the suit filed by the respondent No. 1 initially on 1.5.2012 and subsequently made absolute by virtue of judgment and order dated 8.12.2013. The petitioner, therefore, does not have any right to question the receipt of rental compensation by either the respondent No. 1 herein or by the performa defendants in the civil suit, which is pending. In my opinion, the order impugned in the present petition suffer from no illegality or perversity. 16. The petition is found to be without any merit and is accordingly dismissed along with connected IA.