Ashis Patra vs Parwaz Ahmad Siddiqui

Ashoke Kumar Dasadhikari, J.—The contempt application was tiled by the applicants/petitioners for violation of the order of status quo passed on 28th February 2013. Mr. De, Learned Counsel appearing for the applicants submits that against a notice issued u/s 50 of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act, 1955 the writ petitioners moved the Writ Petition being W.P. No. 5048(W) of 2013. It is also admitted by the Revenue Officer as well as the B.L. & L.R.O. of the concerned block that on 25th February, 2013 they have received a copy of the Writ Petition being W.P. No. 5048(W) of 2013 which was filed on 18th February, 2013 before this Hon''ble Court. He submits that on 28th February, 2013 in presence of the learned Advocate for the State, considering the facts and circumstances of this case, an order of status quo was directed to be maintained by the parties until further order.

Mr. De further submits that in spite of having knowledge of pendency of the Writ Petition as well as the order passed on 28th February, 2013, the concerned Revenue Officer/the prescribed authority passed an order on 28th February, 2013 to implement his order passed on 13th February, 2013 for correction of records, thereby removing the name of the petitioners.

Mr. De submits that after the order was passed by the prescribed authority on 13th February, 2013 there was no scope to pass any order on 68th February, 2013 by the prescribed authority to the effect, that the order is being "tamilled" on 28th February, 2013.

Mr. De submits that the order was passed in presence of the State advocate. The alleged contemnors are aware of the order and as such, the concerned prescribed authority deliberately and intentionally on 28th February, 2013 directed the concerned B.L. & L.R.O. to execute the order passed on 13th February, 2013.

Mr. De submits that on very same day the concerned B.L. & L.R.O. changed the record-of-rights removing the name of the applicants and issued certified copy of the record-of-rights on the very same day to the Secretary of the school. Mr. De also submits the said revenue officer/prescribed authority and the concerned B.L. & L.R.O. did not disclose the time when prescribed authority passed the order on 28th February, 2013 and office notes, reports, orders or proceedings with signature when his order was communicated to the B.L. & L.R.O. and when B.L. & L.R.O. issued order and/or instruction to correct the concerned records and when the Secretary of the school applied for certified copy and when, certified copy was issued. He submits alleged acquisition, as claimed, is of 1963-64 and since then no efforts were made for correction but on the same day, when interim order was passed, all these events took place.

Mr. De further submits that this is a deliberate act on the part of the alleged ''contemnors, specially the respondent Nos. 3 and 4, who, coming to know about the order passed by this Court, did this correction to get an escape and/or still a march over the order passed by this Court.

Mr. De submits the matter which was pending for long 40 to 50 years but everything was done on a single day i.e. on 28th February, 2013.

Mr. De submits that it was not necessary for the prescribed authority to pass such order when the prescribed authority received the copy of the Writ Petition and is aware that the Writ Petition was moved on 18th February, 2013 and the entire matter is sub judice. The B.L. & L.R.O. concerned is also aware about the pendency of the Writ Petition. He also executed the order of the prescribed authority in spite of interim order passed by this Court which is in his knowledge. Moreover, on the prayer of the Secretary of the school, certified copy was issued on the selfsame date.

Mr. De submits nothing is required to be proved and/or shown before the Hon''ble Court that the act of violation is deliberate and intentional. Therefore, the respondents should be directed to restore the record of right as it was standing on 27th February, 2013 and also deal with the alleged contemnors in a suitable way since they, after coming to know about the order, have violated the same.

Learned Counsel appearing for the alleged contemnors Nos. 3 and 4 submits that the contempt order was sent under registered post on 1st March, 2013. Therefore, the alleged contemnors are not supposed to know the order passed by this Hon''ble Court. He further submits that the prescribed authority has passed the order for correction on 13th February, 2013 and on that basis the B.L. & L.R.O. has corrected it. Therefore, the cancellation order, which was passed by the prescribed authority, was implemented only. According to him, there, is no violation of the order passed by, this Court.

Learned Counsel appearing for the alleged contemnor No. 5 submits that the copy of the Writ Petition was not served on 28th February, 2013. Therefore, his client was not present before this Court and he is not aware of the order passed by this Court on that date.

Learned Counsel submits that there were litigations and the matter relates to acquisition of the property in 1963-64. Therefore, he submits at least his client should not be held a contemnor since he has no knowledge about the order nor he has violated the order passed by this Hon''ble Court.

In reply, Mr. De submits that a civil suit is pending before the Trial Court, which is yet to be decided. He also denied the contention and/or allegation made by the Learned Counsel appearing for the alleged contemnors. He submits that the contemnors should be dealt with properly and the records should be corrected as it was standing on 27th February, 2013.

Heard the Learned Counsel appearing for the parties and considered the materials disclosed in the Writ Petition. It is evident from the averments made by the alleged contemnor Nos. 3 and 4 i.e. the Revenue Officer/prescribed authority as Well as the B.L. & L.R.O. concerned that they have knowledge about the filing of the Writ Petition on 18th February, 2013, since a copy of the same was served upon them on 25th February, 2013, therefore, there is no dispute that the notice issued by the prescribed authority was under challenge and in fact, an order of status quo was passed in presence of the learned Advocate for the State as well as for the petitioner. The State Counsel is supposed to inform this order to the concerned B.L. & L.R.O. as well as the prescribed authority immediately since there is an order of injunction to be obeyed and not to be violated by the authorities. From records annexed in the affidavit-in-opposition of the respondent No. 5, the Secretary of the school, that although the order for correction was passed on 13th February, 2013 but again the prescribed authority on 28th February, 2013 passed an order "the aforesaid order is being tamilled on 28th February, 2013". On that basis the concerned B.L. & L.R.O. on that very day removed the name of the applicants from the records-of-right and inserted the name of the school. Moreover, a certified copy was issued on the very same day. This appears to this Court that the alleged contemnors are well aware and have knowledge about the order and that is why this sort of action was taken hurriedly on the very same day. On 28th February, 2013 the prescribed authority passed an order of execution of the order dated 13th February, 2013 although he has no business to pass such order on that day. Moreover, the concerned B.L. & L.R.O., who is aware about the Writ Petition and has information about the interim order, without waiting for disposal of the Writ Petition corrected the records-of-right on the very same day and surprisingly enough on the very same day certified copy of the changed records-of-rights was supplied to the Secretary of the School although the matter is pending since 1963-64 before the learned Land Acquisition Tribunal. In a single day the two officers did this job during office hours and moreover, on the selfsame date the Secretary filed an application for certified copy and the B.L. & L.R.O. on the very same day issued certified copy to the Secretary of the school. From the 2 records it is evident that the alleged contemnor Nos. 2, 3 and 5 were aware about the order passed by this Hon''ble Court and they have done this act deliberately and intentionally to disobey the order passed by this Court.

Accordingly, I direct the alleged contemnor Nos. 3 & 4 to remove the name of the school from the records-of-right and to put the names of the recorded persons who were on 27th February, 2013. However, the concerned B.L. & L.R.O. as well as the Revenue Officer is held guilty of Contempt of Court and they are directed to pay Rs. 1,000/- each to the applicants within a week from date, failing which the superior authority is directed to recover Rs. 1,000/- from the salary of the alleged contemnor Nos. 3 and 4 and to pay the same to the applicants. However, this Court feels that the alleged contemnor No. 5 was not present on the date passing such order. He is not held guilty. Therefore, he is exonerated.

The contempt application is, thus, disposed of.

This correction should be made immediately and the learned Advocate on record of the applicants is directed to communicate this order by hand within 9th July, 2013. Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be furnished to the appearing parties on priority basis.