Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 1471 (JHR)

Md. Sakil Ahmad v. State of Jharkhand

2019-08-26

SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD

body2019
JUDGMENT : The contempt application has been filed under Sections 11 and 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act read with Article 215 of the Constitution of India, whereby and whereunder, the direction to the said proceeding against the opposite party no.2 under Contempt of Court Act has been sought to be initiated for willful and deliberate on non-compliance of order dated 01.03.2019 passed in W.P.(C) No.6335 of 2018. 2. Mr. Mahesh Tiwari, learned counsel for the petitioner, has submitted that the petitioner has purchased the land upon which the proceeding under the Bihar Public Land Encroachment Act (Jharkhand) has been initiated and the land has found to be not in the nature of public land, the second proceeding under the provision of Bihar Public Land Encroachment Act being B.P.L.E. Case No.39 of 2019 has also been initiated, but dropped. The petitioner being the subsequent purchaser of the land and after getting the land transferred in his favour by creating an instrument under the Indian Registration Act, has instituted two cases i.e., Mutation Case No.738/2018-19 and 737/2018-19 but the Circle Officer, Nirsa since was not taking any decision on the said pending proceeding, therefore, the said writ petition has been filed. 3. This Court, after hearing the learned counsel for the parties and without any objection on behalf of the learned State counsel for disposal of the mutation case which according to the petitioners was pending before the Circle Officer, has directed the Circle Officer, Nirsa to dispose of the mutation cases in accordance with law within a reasonable period. 4. The instant contempt application has been field by the petitioners when the mutation cases have not been disposed of. 5. Show cause notice has been filed by the opposite party no.2 wherein, it has been stated that the order has been passed by the writ court on 01.03.2019 but much prior to the said order, the mutation proceeding has already been disposed of as on 04.09.2018 and according to the opposite party, this fact has not been brought to the notice of this Court. Further the stand has been taken that since the writ petition has been disposed of on the very first hearing, therefore, the disposal about the proceeding could not have brought to the notice of the Court. 6. Further the stand has been taken that since the writ petition has been disposed of on the very first hearing, therefore, the disposal about the proceeding could not have brought to the notice of the Court. 6. Reply to the show cause has been filed by the petitioners wherein, the stand has been taken by making reference of prayer no.C, wherein the direction has been sought for upon the respondents to explain to this Court as to how the case status of Case No.738/2018-2019 and 737/2018-2019 has been stated to be a land of Gaira-abad khata. Further the stand has been taken by accepting the contention of opposite party no.2 that the fact about the disposal of the mutation proceeding has not been brought to the notice of this Court at the time of the disposal of the writ petition, is not correct by looking to the prayer no.”C”, wherein the petitioner has specifically sought for a direction to explain as to how the land in question has been shown to be “Gaira-abad” khata. Further stand has been taken that although, the land which belongs to the petitioner has been shown to be “Gaira-abad” but the other purchaser of the land of the said khata, the mutation order has been passed as would appear from the documents appended to the reply to the show cause as would appear from annexure-2 onward thereof. 7. On the basis of these submissions, it has vehemently been argued by Mr. Mahesh Tiwari, learned counsel for the petitioner that it is a case where the proceeding under the Contempt of Courts Act be initiated against the opposite party no.2. 8. In response, Mr. 7. On the basis of these submissions, it has vehemently been argued by Mr. Mahesh Tiwari, learned counsel for the petitioner that it is a case where the proceeding under the Contempt of Courts Act be initiated against the opposite party no.2. 8. In response, Mr. Rupesh Singh, learned G.P.-V appearing for the opposite party no.2 has submitted that if the petitioner is considering to the fact about the disposal of the mutation proceeding by assigning the reason by showing the nature of land as Gair-abad, the same ought to have been challenged by the petitioners in the writ petition for quashing of the said order but having not done so, rather the decision it may be of “one line” but after taking such decision since the mutation proceeding has already been disposed of, therefore, if those facts ought to have been brought into the knowledge of the Court in the writ petition, the writ court would not have passed the order in the nature, upon which the same has been passed. He, therefore, submits that it is not a case where the opposite party no.2 has disposed of the order passed by this Court under the writ jurisdiction. 9. This Court has heard the learned counsel for the parties. 10. The proceeding ought to have been initiated under Sections 11 and 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. Under Sections 11 and 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act provides about the power of the High Court to try offences committed or offenders found outside jurisdiction while section 12 provides punishment for contempt of Court which reads as hereunder:- “11. Power of High Court to try offences committed or offenders found outside jurisdiction.- A High Court shall have jurisdiction to inquire into or try a contempt of itself or of nay Court subordinate to it, whether the contempt is alleged to have been committed within or outside the local limits of its jurisdiction, and whether the person alleged to be guilty of contempt is within or outside such limits. 12. 12. Punishment for contempt of Court.-(1) Save as otherwise expressly provided in this Act or in any other law, a contempt of Court may be punished with simple imprisonment for a term which may extend to six months, or with fine which may extend to two thousand rupees, or with both: Provided that the accused may be discharged or the punishment awarded may be remitted on apology being made to the satisfaction to the Court. (2) Notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force, no Court shall impose a sentence in excess of that specified in sub-section (1) for any contempt either in respect of itself or of a Court subordinate to it. (3) Notwithstanding anything contained in this section, where a person is found guilty of a civil contempt, the Court, if it considers that a fine will not meet the ends of justice and that a sentence of imprisonment is necessary shall, instead of sentencing him to simple imprisonment, direct that he be detained in a civil prison for such period not exceeding six months as it may think fit. (4) Where the person found guilty of contempt of Court in respect of any undertaking given to a Court is a company, every person who, at the time the contempt was committed, was in charge of, and was responsible to, the company for the conduct of the business of the company, as well as the company, shall be deemed to be guilty of the contempt and the punishment may be enforced with the leave of the Court, by the detention in civil prison of each such person: Provided that nothing contained in this sub-section shall render any such person liable to such punishment if he proves that the contempt was committed without his knowledge or that he exercised all due diligence to prevent its commission. (5) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (4), where the contempt of Court referred to therein has been committed by a company and it is proved that the contempt has been committed with the consent or connivance of, or is attributable to nay neglect on the part of, any director, manager, secretary or other officer to the company, such director, manager, secretary or other officer shall also be deemed to be guilty of the contempt and the punishment may be enforced, with the leave of the Court, by the detention in civil prison of such director, manager, secretary or other officer.” 11. It is evident from the provision of Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 that a contempt of Court may be punished with simple imprisonment for a term which may extend to six months and therefore, it would be appropriate from the said provision that the Court having conferred with the power may punish under the Contempt of Courts Act for willful and deliberate on non-compliance of the order passed by the High Court or the Supreme Court. Under the definition part “contempt” has been defined which means that wilful disobedience to any judgment, decree, direction, order, writ or other process of a Court of wilful breach of an undertaking given to a Court, therefore, Contempt of Courts Act may proceed for punishing the authority who has been found to disobey the order passed said to be in the nature of wilful disobedience. It is thus, evident that the jurisdiction of the Contempt of Courts Act, is limited only to look into the disobedience part of the order or the order passed by the High Court or the Supreme Court as the case may. So far as the order passed by this Court under the writ jurisdiction is concerned, the petitioner has raised the issue about the pendency of the mutation proceeding before the mutating authority/opposite party no.2. 12. Submission has been made about the dropping of the proceeding of the Public Land Encroachment Act. 13. This Court, with the consent of the parties and without looking into the merit part, has disposed of the writ petition by directing the Circle Officer, Nirsa to dispose of the mutation proceeding in accordance with law within a period of eight weeks’ from the date of receipt of copy of the order. 14. 13. This Court, with the consent of the parties and without looking into the merit part, has disposed of the writ petition by directing the Circle Officer, Nirsa to dispose of the mutation proceeding in accordance with law within a period of eight weeks’ from the date of receipt of copy of the order. 14. It is evident from the show cause notice that the mutation proceeding has been shown to be disposed of by displaying in the web-site by showing the reason of nature of land as Gair-abad. 15. Mr. Tiwari, learned counsel for the petitioner, has tried to impress upon the Court that “one line” order showing the nature of land as Gair-abad cannot be said to be an order in the eye of law. 16. This argument cannot be disputed by this Court by going through the provision of Section 14 of the Bihar Tenant’s Holdings (Maintenance of Records) Act, 1973 which provides that in case of requisition made by the party for creating mutation in his favour, an appropriate order would be passed by the Anchal Adhikari (Circle Officer) after inviting objection and deciding the objection, if any, by taking a decision, subject to appeal or revision as provided under Sections 15 and 16 of the Act, 1973. 17. It is admitted fact therein that this Court has passed an order presuming the fact that the mutation proceedings in question were pending at the time of disposal of the writ petition but as would appear from the stand taken by the opposite party no.2 in the show cause and has not been disputed by the petitioner that the mutation proceeding has been shown to be displayed by showing it in the website by reflecting the nature of land as Gair-abad as on 04.09.2018 but such prayer has not been made for quashing of the said order. 18. In that view of the matter since the Court has passed an order for disposal of the mutation proceeding but the date when this Court has passed the order in this writ petition i.e., on 01.03.2019, the mutation proceeding will be said to be disposed of by showing the nature of land as Gair-abad. 18. In that view of the matter since the Court has passed an order for disposal of the mutation proceeding but the date when this Court has passed the order in this writ petition i.e., on 01.03.2019, the mutation proceeding will be said to be disposed of by showing the nature of land as Gair-abad. So far as the contention of the petitioner that the said reason is not proper and it cannot be in “one line” by showing it in the web-site rather the authority ought to have been adjudicated by taking the plea agitated in the application for its adjudication. This Court, is of the view that no remarks can be made at this stage with respect to the said submission, since the same was not the case of the petitioner in the writ petition and no such argument has been made to that effect. 19. In view thereof and taking into consideration the fact that the mutation proceedings were not pending at the time when the writ petition was disposed of, therefore, this Court is not inclined to proceed with the Contempt proceeding, accordingly, the contempt proceeding, is dismissed. 20. However, reserving liberty to the petitioners to challenge the aforesaid order before the appropriate Forum/authority. 21. Before parting with the order, it needs to refer herein by issuing a direction upon the Secretary, Land and Revenue, Department, Govt. of Jharkhand to issue general direction upon all the Revenue Authorities who have been conferred with the power as contained under Section 14 or 15 or 17 of the Act, 1973 to adjudicate the issue in accordance with law instead of displaying the same on the web-site. The result can be uploaded in the web-site, the result must be based upon the conclusive finding on proper adjudication but as would appear and this Court has got impression that the revenue authority even though has been conferred with the power of the quasi-judicial authorities are not discharging their duties as has been conferred upon them under the statute. 22. In view thereof, the Secretary of the Land Revenue Department, is directed to issue appropriate instructions upon all the revenue authorities of the State of Jharkhand who are dealing with the cases under the provision of Bihar Tenant’s Holdings (Maintenance of Records) Act, 1973 to follow the Law strictly and adjudicate the issue in terms of the aforesaid provision. 23. In view thereof, the Secretary of the Land Revenue Department, is directed to issue appropriate instructions upon all the revenue authorities of the State of Jharkhand who are dealing with the cases under the provision of Bihar Tenant’s Holdings (Maintenance of Records) Act, 1973 to follow the Law strictly and adjudicate the issue in terms of the aforesaid provision. 23. Accordingly, this contempt application stands disposed of. 24. Let a copy of the order be communicated to the Chief Secretary of the State of Jharkhand as also the Secretary, Land Revenue Department, Govt. of Jharkhand for its onward communication to the concerned authority.