CLCON/121/2008 of VIVEKANANDA BISWAS Vs D. SANTHYL PANDIYAN on 31 December 2008

IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND ATNAINITAL

Contempt Petition No. 121 of 2008

Vivekanada Biswas …Petitioner

Versus

Sri D. Santhyl Pandiyan & another … Respondents Mr. Ambika Ray, along with Mr. M.K. Ray, Advocates for petitioner Mr. H.M. Raturi, Standing Counsel for respondent Dated: December 31, 2008

Hon’ble B.C. Kandpal, J.

By way of this contempt petition under Section 12 of Contempt of Courts Act, read with Article 215 of Constitution of India the petitioner has prayed for summoning the respondent for the willful disobedience and violation of the order dated 01.03.2007 passed by this Court in Writ Petition No. 1656 of 2006 (M/B), on the ground that this Court issued direction to give the possession of 0.25 acres of land to each of the petitioner, but that much of land (0.25 acres) has not been given to the petitioner as yet in compliance to the Court’s order.

01.03.2007 passed by this Court in Writ Petition Counter affidavit along with response and affidavit of compliance have been filed on behalf of District magistrate, Udham Singh Nagar.

Heard Sri Ambika Ray, learned counsel for petitioner, Sri H.M. Raturi, learned counsel for respondents and perused the record.

The relevant portion of the order dated 01.03.2007 passed by this Court reads as follows:

“Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, the District Judge, Udham Singh Nagar is directed to ensure the measurement of the areas of the land in possession of the petitioners and if it is found short of the allotted area, the District magistrate concerned shall provide the rest of the land to the petitioners as per the lease deed and put them in possession.

Subject to above, the writ petition is disposed of finally. No order as to costs.”

Counter affidavit filed by the respondent shows that initially 1.50 acres of land was allotted to per person to all the petitioners but due to non-availability of 0.05 acres of land 1.45 acres of land could be handed over to the petitioners. In paragraph 8 of the counter affidavit, further it has been made clear that out of 1.45 acres of land; although the possession had already been taken over by the petitioners on 20.6.1989, but even after the petitioners moved the application that 0.25 acres of the above allotted 1.45 acres of land was being encroached by some other persons inspite of handing over the possession of 1.45 acres of land to them. On this application, revenue officials went to the spot and again handed over 0.25 acres of land to all the writ petitioners which they accepted and became agreed on 10.6.1994. The respondent has filed Annexure Nos. 2 and 3 along with counter affidavit dated 30[th] December, 2008, which clearly indicates that all the writ petitioners had been given .025 acres of land and on the memo of possession all the writ petitioners put their signatures.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has stated that in fact, the revenue authorities put forged signatures of all the writ petitioners over the memo of possession and the petitioners, in fact, had not been handed over any possession. I am not supposed to enter into this controversy while exercising the jurisdiction of the contempt. In case, if the petitioner feels aggrieved by the memo of possession dated 16.6.1994 on the ground that signatures of writ petitioners were put in a forged manner, he could have initiated the proceedings in law against the revenue authorities or against the wrong doers, but, in any case the petitioner cannot take this ground in the contempt proceedings. I am of the view that the case under the Contempt of Courts Act is not made out against the respondents at this stage and petition is liable to be dismissed.

Accordingly, petition is dismissed. Notice issued against the respondent is hereby discharged.

SP

(B.C. Kandpal, J.)