The Court dismissed a contempt petition alleging non-compliance with an order to issue Record of Rights. It held that since the opposite party filed a mutation appeal challenging the same order, they could not issue the Record of Rights, and thus no contempt was committed.
Contempt proceedings in Cont.No. 11 of 2020 dropped due to no contempt being committed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
CONTC No. 11 of 2020
Heard Mr. Bijaya Kumar Behera, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Swayambhu Mishra, learned Additional Standing Counsel for the opposite party.
This petition under Section 12 of Contempt of Court Act, 1971 (for short, the Act’) has been filed alleging non-compliance of order dated 30.09.2019 passed in W.P.(C) No.17748 of 2019, relevant portion of which reads as follows:
“Considering the innocuous prayer, this Court disposes of the writ petition with an observation that if the petitioner files an application for issuance of R.O.R. before the Additional Tahasildar, Kanisi, Ganjam the later shall do well to issue R.O.R. in favour of the petitioner, if there is no impediment.”
Mr. Behera, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that although the order was passed on 30.09.2019, (which was subsequently corrected by virtue of order dated 05.11.2019 passed in I.A. No. 14491 of 2019) and the petitioner filed an application for issuance of the R.O.R. in terms of order dated 23.02.2019 passed in Mutation Case Nos. 13666 of 2018 and 13667 of 2018, the Tahasildar, Konisi did not comply with the said order. As such, the petitioner filed the application under the provisions of the Act. Pursuant to the notice to show cause, reply has been filed by the opposite party stating that assailing the
2
order passed in Mutation Case Nos. 13666 of 2018 and 13667 of 2018, Mutation Appeal No.19 of 2020 has been filed by the Tahasildar, Konisi on 14.02.2020 and notice of the same has already been issued to the petitioner. As such, the opposite party is not in a position to issue the R.O.R. A rejoinder affidavit has been filed by the petitioner to the said show cause reply stating thereon that after getting notice from this Court only, the Tahasildar, Konisi woke up from the slumber and filed the appeal in Mutation Appeal No.19 of 2020 assailing the order passed in Mutation Case Nos. 13666 of 2018 and 13667 of 2018. As such, one appeal against order passed in two mutation cases are not maintainable. In order to circumvent the order of this Court and to get rid of the rigours of the Contempt proceeding, the appeal has been filed. As such, the show cause reply should be rejected and the opposite party be suitably punished for committing Contempt of Court.
Taking into consideration the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, this Court is of the considered opinion that since the appeal has already been filed assailing the order passed in Mutation Case Nos.13666 of 2018 and 13667 of 2018, maintainability of the same can be well raised by the petitioner before the appellate authority. It is further observed that during pendency of the mutation appeal, the
3
Tahasildar, Konisi will not be in a position to issue the Record of Right in terms of the order passed in Mutation Case Nos. 13666 of 2018 and 13667 of 2018.
In that view of the matter, I find that there is no contempt of Court committed by the opposite party as alleged by the petitioner.
Accordingly, contempt proceeding in CONTC No.11 of 2020 is dropped.
Authenticated copy of this order downloaded from the website of this Court in the manner prescribed in this Courts Notice No.4587 dated 25.03.2020 shall be treated at par with the certified copy of this order.
……..……………………
K.R. MOHAPATRA, J.
bct
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the opposite party committed contempt of court by not issuing Record of Rights before pendency of a filed mutation appeal.
Whether the maintainability of an appeal filed immediately after notice of contempt proceedings is an excuse for non-compliance with a prior order.
Whether contempt proceedings should be continued or dropped given the pendency of a mutation appeal challenging the underlying order.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Petitioner
Opposite Party
K.R. Mohapatra
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
