Rakesh Kumar Jaiswal Vs Shri Ajay Kumar Dhal

1 - Shri Ajay Kumar Dhal, Project Director, National Highway Authority Of India, Project Implementation Unit, Abhilasha Parisar, Behind New Bus Stand, Bilaspur, District - Bilaspur (C.G.), (Contemnor)

¶10

... Respondent

¶11

(Cause title taken from CIS System)

¶12

For Appellant : Ms. Ritika Dubey, Advocate For Respondent : None.

¶13

Hon'ble Smt Justice Rajani Dubey J. Hon’ble Shri Justice Sachin Singh Rajput, J.

¶14

Judgment on Board

¶15

Per, Rajani Dubey, Judge

¶16

08.04.2025

¶17

The appellant has filed the instant appeal under Section 19 of The Contempt of Courts, Act, 1971 (for short ‘the Act, 1971’) questioning the order dated 27.02.2025 passed by the Learned Single Judge in Cont. No.153/2024 whereby the learned Court finds that no deliberate contempt has been made out against the contemnor/respondent, as such the contempt proceedings have been closed and the respondent therein i.e., NHAI has been discharged from the contempt proceedings.

¶18

2

¶19

Heard counsel for the appellant on the default being pointed out by the Registry that under Section 19 of Contempt of Courts Act this appeal may not maintainable.

¶20

Briefly stated facts of the case are that the land bearing Survey Nos. 481/2 and and 482/2 measuring 0.0410 hectare, situated at Village-Beltara, Mahal No. 2, P.H. No. 6, Tahsil-Beltara, District- Bilaspur (for short “the land”). The respondenti.e., in NHAI in the Writ Petition (C) bearing No. 1130/2023 acquired various lands of Village-Beltara and other nearby villages for the purpose of construction of Four-Lane National Highway Road in between Pendridih-Pathrapali National Highway No. 111-130 and for the construction of the road the land owned by the petitioner was also acquired and used. The respondent No. 2 i.e., NHAI acquired lands through respondent No. 4, Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue) and after conclusion of land acquisition proceedings, the award was passed and compensation was accordingly paid to the affected land owners. The petitioner was paid compensation in lieu of acquisition of 0.0080 hectares of the land. After completion of the construction of road, the petitioner realized that some more land of than what was acquired by respondent No. 2 was utilized in construction of road and therefore, the petitioner along with other similarly situated villagers have submitted representation before the District Collector as also respondent No. 4 (in the writ petition) upon which a committee of Revenue Officers was constituted by the respondent No. 4 (Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue)) to submit report after conducting spot inspection and verification. Thereafter, the said committee submitted its report to the respondent No. 4 (Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue)) and the respondent No. 4 vide memo dated 21.09.2022 forwarded the same to respondent No. 2 National Highway Authority of India (NHAI),

¶21

3

¶22

but the same went in vain which compelled the petitioner to file the writ petition bearing No. WPC 1130/2023 before this Court and this Court vide order dated 25.08.2023 disposed of the Writ Petition directing the respondent No. 2 to take decision on the claim of the petitioner pursuant to memo/letter written by respondent No. 4 within a period of 03 months thereof. Despite the said order the claim of the petitioner was not decided by the respondent No. 2 which resulted into filing of Cont No. 153 of 2024 by the petitioner, but the same was closed vide order dated 27.02.2025 and the respondent therein NHAI was discharged from the contempt proceedings against which the present appeal has been preferred.

¶23

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the order passed by the Hon’ble Single Judge is arbitrary, illegal and contrary to the law applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case. The Hon’ble Single Judge failed to see that the provision of Section 3H (4) of the Act, 1956 was applicable for the dispute arises as to the apportionment of the amount or any part thereof or to any person to whom the same or any part thereof is payable, but in the case in hand the dispute is with respect to the land that the more land has been used and compensation has been paid for less land. The Hon’ble Single Judge failed to see that the remedy of civil suit is not present for the appellant as there is no dispute with respect to apportionment of the amount or any part thereof or to any person to whom the same or any part thereof is payable. So, the impugned judgment/order dated 27.02.2025 passed by the learned Single Bench in Contempt Case No. 153/2024 in the case of Rajesh Kumar Jaiswal vs. Shri Ajay Kumar Dhal is liable to be set aside.

¶24

Heard learned counsel for the appellant and perused the material available on record with utmost circumspection.

¶25

4

¶26

This Miscellaneous Appeal is filed by the appellant against the order dated 27.02.2025 passed by the learned Single Judge in contempt petition No. 153/2024 whereby the learned Single Judge discharged the respondent/contemnor from the contempt proceedings.

¶27

The learned Single Judge observed in paras 7 & 8 of the Contempt Case No. 149 of 2024 which reads as under :-

¶28

“7. From perusal of the letter dated 28/08/2024 it is apparent that the award has been passed in the case of the petitioner and the amount has already been deposited in the account of the petitioner and the contemnor has not only decided the representation of the petitioner but also informed the same to the petitioner and the amount pursuant to the acquisition of land has already been deposited in the account of the petitioner and the liberty has been given to the petitioner to approach the Civil Court for redressal of his grievance because there is difference in the demarcation report dated 21.09.2022 & 01.08.2024.

¶29

8. In view of the above, no deliberate contempt has been made out against the contemnor. Accordingly, the contempt proceedings are closed and the contempt petition is disposed of.”

¶30

This Court observed in Miscellaneous Appeal No. 124/2024 in order dated

¶31

20.11.2024 held under paras 9, 10 & 11 which reads as under:-

¶32

“9. The Supreme Court in the matter of Midnapore Peoples’ Coop. Bank Ltd. (supra) held thus at para 11:

¶33

11. The position emerging from these decisions, in regard to appeals against orders in contempt proceedings may be summarized thus:

¶34

I. An appeal under Section 19 is maintainable only against an order or decision of the High Court passed in exercise of its jurisdiction to punish for contempt, that is, an order imposing punishment for contempt.

¶35

II. Neither an order declining to initiate proceedings for contempt, nor an order initiating proceedings for contempt nor an order dropping the proceedings for contempt nor an order acquitting or exonerating the contemnor, is appealable under Section 1 of the CC Act. In special circumstances, they may be open to challenge under Article 136 of the Constitution.

¶36

III. In a proceeding for contempt, the High Court can decide whether any contempt of court has been committed, and if so, what should be the punishment and matters incidental thereto. In such a proceeding, it

¶37

5

¶38

is not appropriate to adjudicate or decide any issue relating to the merits of the dispute between the parties.

¶39

IV. Any direction issued or decision made by the High Court on the merits of a dispute, between the parties, will not be in the exercise of ‘jurisdiction to punish for contempt’ and therefore, not appealable under Section 19 of CC Act. The only exception is where such direction or decision is incidental to or inextricably connected with the order punishing for contempt, in which event the appeal under Section 19 of the Act, can also encompass the incidental or inextricably connected directions.

¶40

V. If the High Court, for whatsoever reason, decides an issue or makes any direction, relating to the merits of the dispute between the parties, in a contempt proceedings, the aggrieved person is not without remedy. Such an order is open to challenge in an intra-court appeal ( if the order was of a learned Single Judge and there is a provision for an intra-court appeal), or by seeking special leave to appeal under Article 136 of the Constitution of India ( in other cases).

¶41

The first point is answered accordingly.

¶42

10. The judgment rendered in the matter of Midnapore Peoples’ Coop. Bank Ltd. (supra) has been relied in Ajay Kumar Bhalla (supra) and observed at para 14 that in view of the decision rendered in Midnapore Peoples’ Coop. Bank Ltd. (supra), it is a settled principle that an appeal under Section 19 lies only against an order imposing punishment for contempt.

¶43

11. In view of the judgments rendered by the Supreme Court in Midnapore Peoples’ Coop. Bank Ltd. (supra) & Ajay Kumar Bhalla (supra), it is held that the appeal under Section 19 of the Act, 1971, is not maintainable, however, as observed by the Supreme Court, if the aggrieved person is not without remedy such an order is open to challenge in an intra-court appeal (if the order was of a learned Single Judge and there is a provision for an intra-court appeal), the applicant herein is at liberty to challenge the order passed by the learned Contempt Court questioning the same in an intracourt appeal, if so advised.”

¶44

In the light of above cited judgments, this appeal is also disposed of with the

¶45

observation and liberty as described by this Court in para 11 of the impugned judgment dated 20.11.2024.

¶46

Digitally signed by AMIT PATEL

¶47

Sd/Sd/- (Rajani Dubey) (Sachin Singh Rajput) JUDGE JUDGE

¶48

AMIT PATEL

Rakesh Kumar Jaiswal v. Shri Ajay Kumar Dhal

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rakesh Kumar Jaiswal v. Shri Ajay Kumar Dhal

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Preetram Kashyap Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Union of India Vs Guha

Union of India Vs Dasarath

Suresh Kumar Jaiswal Vs Vivek Shrimal

Union of India Vs Kislal

Kavilas Vs State of Chhattisgarh