Dismissed

Sita Ram S/O Shri Chothmal v. Gopal Denwal

Rajasthan HC21 Apr 2023CCP/1141/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court dismissed a contempt petition filed against the Gram Panchayat for failing to demarcate land within the specified timeframe. The court held that the Panchayat lacked the necessary machinery and technical resources to perform demarcation itself. Consequently, the failure was not willful disobedience. The petitioner was directed to approach revenue authorities for the demarcation.

What the court decided

AI extract

Sita Ram S/O Shri Chothmal Vs Gopal… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Rajasthan HC (2023)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶2

S.B. Civil Contempt Petition No. 1141/2012

¶3

¶4

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.11369/2009

¶5

Sita Ram S/o Shri Chothmal, aged about 69 years, R/o Village Govindgarh, Tahsil Chomu, District Jaipur

¶6

----Petitioner

¶7

Versus

¶8

Gopal Denwal, Sarpanch Gram Panchayat Govindgarh, District Jaipur (Raj.)

¶9

Rakesh Kumar Verma, Secretary, Gram Panchayat Govindgarh, District Jaipur (Raj.)

¶10

----Respondents

¶11

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Anshuman Saxena For Respondent(s) : Mr. Vishal Karnani for Mr. Akshay Sharma, AGC

¶12

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MAHENDAR KUMAR GOYAL

¶13

Order

¶14

21/04/2023

¶15

This contempt petition has been filed alleging willful disobedience of the order dated 22.02.2012 passed by this court in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.11369/2009 whereby, the Gram Panchayat, Govindgarh has been directed to decide the issue as to whether the allotment or any part thereof made to the petitioner is within the old Khasra No.367 which is equivalent to new Khasra No.626.

¶16

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that despite order of this Court to decide the issue within two months, the Gram Panchayat has not done so. He, therefore, prays that the respondent No.1 may be punished suitably.

¶17

[CCP-1141/2012]

¶18

(2 of 7)

¶19

Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents would submit that as per the order dated 18.05.2009, two different reports were issued by the Tehsildar in relation to the subject land whereafter, the matter was remanded to the Gram Panchayat for issuing revised patta . Thereafter, after receipt of a copy of the order dated 22.02.2012 passed by this Court, all the concerned including the petitioner were issued notice inviting objections. He submits that for demarcation of the land, the Tehsildar has been requested as it is beyond the capacity and means of the Gram Panchayat to carry it out in absence of ETS machine. He, in this regard, referred to the report dated 24.07.2018 prepared in presence of the Tehsildar, Chomu. Learned counsel for the respondents has also produced a copy of the letter dated 08.03.2023 addressed by the Tehsildar to the petitioner requesting him to contact Land Settlement Department for carrying out requisite demarcation. He would submit that demarcation of the subject property cannot be carried out by the Gram Panchaya t as it does not have means for it and it can only be done by the Revenue Authorities with the help of the Land Settlement Department as per the prescribed procedure. He, therefore, prays for dismissal of the contempt petition.

¶20

Heard. Considered.

¶21

This Court has, vide order dated 22.02.2012, contempt whereof is alleged, directed the Gram Panchayat to decide the issue before it, i.e., whether the land allotted or any party thereof to the petitioner fell within the old Khasra No.367 which is equivalent to new Khasra No.626 in terms of the impugned order dated 18.05.2009. Indisputably, it involves demarcation of the

¶22

(3 of 7) [CCP-1141/2012]

¶23

subject land and the Gram Panchayat is not equipped with necessary machinery to carry it out. From the material on record including the letter dated 08.03.2023 issued by the Tehsildar , Chomu to the petitioner, it is apparent that he has been requested to get it done with the assistance of the Land Settlement Department.

¶24

Their Lordships have in the case of J.S. Parihar vs. Ganpat Duggar & Ors.-(1996) 6 SCC 291 (supra), held as under:

¶25

“6. The question then is whether the Division Bench was right in setting aside the direction issued by the learned single Judge to redraw the seniority list. It is contended by Mr. S.K. Jain, learned counsel appearing for the appellant, that unless the learned Judge goes into the correctness of the decision take by the Government in preparation of the seniority list in the light of the law laid down by three Benches, the learned Judge cannot come to a conclusion whether or not the respondent had willfully or deliberately disobeyed the orders of the Court as defined under Section 2(b) of the Act. Therefore, the learned single Judge of the High Court necessarily has to go into the merits of that question. We do not find that the contention is well founded. It is seen that, admittedly, the respondents had prepared the seniority list on 2.7.1991. Subsequently promotions came to be made. The question is whether seniority list is open to review in the contempt proceedings to find out whether it is in conformity with the directions issued by the earlier Benches. It is seen that once there is an order passed by the Government on the basis of the directions issued by the Court, there arises a fresh cause of action to seek redressal in an appropriate forum. The preparation of the seniority list may be wrong or may be right or may or may not be in conformity with the directions. But that would be a fresh

¶26

[CCP-1141/2012]

¶27

(4 of 7)

¶28

cause of action for the aggrieved party to avail of the opportunity of judicial review. But that cannot be considered to be the willful violation of the order. After re-exercising the judicial review in contempt proceedings, afresh direction by the learned single Judge cannot be given to redraw the seniority list. In other words, the learned Judge was exercising the jurisdiction to consider the matter on merits in the contempt proceedings. It would not be permissible under Section 12 of the Act. Therefore, the Division Bench has exercised the power under Section 18 of the Rajasthan High Court Ordinance being a judgment or order of the single Judge, the Division Bench corrected the mistake committed by the learned single Judge. Therefore, it may not be necessary for the State to file an appeal in this Court against the judgment of the learned single Judge when the matter was already seized of the Division Bench.”

¶29

A coordinate bench of this Court has, in the case of Roop

¶30

Ram vs. Kamlesh Deka & Anr.-MANU/RH 0553/98 , held as

¶31

under:

¶32

“9. It is settled law that in a case where the order is passed through mistake, inadvertence or by misunderstanding of the meaning and purport of the order, but unless it is intentional, no charge of contempt can be brought home. In: B.K. Kar v. Hon'ble the Chief Justice and his companion justices of the Orissa High Court and Anr. MANU/SC/0111/1961 : [1962]1SCR319, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed as under:

¶33

“There may perhaps be a case where an order disobeyed could be reasonably construed in two ways and the subordinate court construed it in one of those ways but in a way different from that intended by the superior court. Surely, it cannot be said that disobedience of the order by the subordinate court was contempt of the superior court. There may possibly be a case where disobedience is accidental. If that is so, there would be no contempt.”

¶34

[CCP-1141/2012]

¶35

(5 of 7)

¶36

Similarly, in: Debabrata Bandopadhyay and other v. the State of West Bengal and Anr. MANU/SC/0366/1968: 1969CriLJ401, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed as under:

¶37

“A question whether there is contempt of court or not is a serious one. The court is both the accuser as well as the judge of the accusation. It behaves the court to act with as great circumspection as possible making all allowances for errors of judgment and difficulties arising from inveterate practices in courts and Tribunals. It is only when a clear case of contumacious conduct not explainable otherwise, arises that the contemner must be punished.... Punishment under the law of Contempt is called for when the lapse is deliberate and in disregard of one's duty and in defiance of authority. To take action in an unclear case is to make the law of contempt do duty for other measures and is not to be encouraged.”

¶38

The same view had been taken by the Hon'ble Apex Court in: M/s. Bharat Cooking Coal Ltd. v. State of Bihar and Ors. MANU/SC/0163/1987 : 1988 CriLJ 396 ; Dushyant Somal v. Sushma Sornal MANU/SC/0540/1981 : 1981CriLJ719 Niyaz Mohammed and Ors. v. State of Haryana and Ors. MANU/SC/0063/1995 : AIR1995SC308 ; and K.J. Pathare v. S.J. Pathare MANU/MH/0177/1969 : (1971)73 BOM LR 616.

¶39

Thus, there has to be a clear-cut direction and if there is a willful disobedience in compliance thereof, a party may lodge the grievance otherwise not. There may be a case where contempt petition may be filed that the judgment and order had been complied with only partially. In such a case the court has to examine: what were the circumstances under which the judgment could not be given effect to fully. In Lt. Col. K.D. Gupta v. Union of India and Ors. AIR 1989 SC 2011, this aspect was considered, as the petition was filed that the entire amount, as directed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court had not been paid to him. The Union of India took the plea that before making the payment to the applicant therein, it was under an obligation to deduct the Income Tax

¶40

[CCP-1141/2012]

¶41

(6 of 7)

¶42

at source. The Hon'ble Supreme Court rejected the plea of contempt and held that in such a case neither the plea of mala fide nor of willful disobedience can be entertained as the Authority has acted bonafide in compliance of the law in force. It is also settled law that if the order is capable of being interpreted in two different ways, the court should not resort to the contempt proceedings. Moreover, the Court cannot modify the original order in the contempt petition. (Vide: State of Rajasthan and Ors. v. Monah Singh 1995 (Suppl. 2) SCC 153).

¶43

In the case of: Manish Gupta and Ors. v. Gurudas Ray, MANU/SC/0255/1995 : AIR 1995 SC 1359, the Apex Court observed that where an Authority passes the order in pursuance of the judgment of a Court and the order is to be passed in accordance with the Rules holding the field and the party is aggrieved of such an order, it is not permissible for such a party to bring a contempt petition if he is aggrieved of such an order. If the party feels that the order has not been made in accordance with relevant rules, he may pursue the remedy available to him in law for enforcing his rights.

¶44

Whether Rule 8 has properly been applied or not and the applicant is entitled for the financial benefits, are the matters of merit. It is not permissible to review an earlier judgment or order in the contempt petition. In: J.S. Parihar v. Ganpat Doongar MANU/SC/0037/1997 : AIR1997 SC 113, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that a review of the earlier judgment is not permissible in the contempt proceedings and the contempt court cannot go into the merit of the case and pass fresh order. If a party is aggrieved that the order passed is not in conformity with the directions, it would be a fresh cause of action for the aggrieved party to avail of the opportunity before an appropriate forum, but it will certainly not fall within the ambit of wilful violation of the order.

¶45

There is no direction for providing the petitioner financial benefits, also, and in absence of such clear

¶46

(7 of 7)

¶47

[CCP-1141/2012]

¶48

direction, it would not be safe to infer that the petitioner was also held entitled for financial benefits under the judgment. 18. Thus, in view of the above, I find no force in the contempt petition. The contempt petition is dismissed. The petitioner-applicant may file a fresh writ petition if he is aggrieved by the said impugned orders and if so advised. The parties are left to bear their own costs.”

¶49

In view of the undisputed position that the Gram Panchayat is not in a position to carry out demarcation, it cannot be held guilty of willful disobedience of the direction of this Court. However, the petitioner is at liberty to get the land demarcated from the revenue authorities in accordance with law.

¶50

In view thereof, this contempt petition is dismissed. Notices are discharged.

¶51

(MAHENDAR KUMAR GOYAL),J

¶52

Sudha/86

Sita Ram S/O Shri Chothmal v. Gopal Denwal

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Sita Ram S/O Shri Chothmal v. Gopal Denwal

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Tarun Chandna Vs Ranjeet Singh

Jeetendra Kumar Bairwa Son of Shri Jai Lal Vs State of Rajasthan

Dr. Shashi Indulia D/O Late Shri Mahadeo Prasad Banka Vs Sh. Shri Khemraj Chaudhary Principal Secretary Higher Education

Ashok Kumar Tiwari Vs Shri Naresh Pal Gangwal and Ors.

Ghanshyam Singh Gurjar Vs Shri Jogaram and Ors.

Gopal Lal Vs Smt.Vimla