Ghulam Mohi-ud-Din vs State & Ors.

A writ petition came to be filed on 1 4 80 by the petitioners against the respondents for issuance of a direction to the respondents that they may

not dispossess the petitioners from the land shown in the site plan annexed with the petition. A show cause notice was issued and ultimately on

hearing both sides thewrit petition was admitted for by virten of order dt 21480.

The petitioners alleged that they were in possession of shops which they had constructed on the land near Batmaloo Road Transport

Corporation Office and that the respondents without any legal right were trying to oust them and disposess them from the possession of the shops

and the land beneath.

In the reply affidavit it was alleged that the petitioners had no right bring this writ petition as they were neither the owners of the land and the

structures there on nor they were in possession of the pieces of land with the permission of the respondents who were the owners of the land in

dispute. It was alleged that they were holding the structures over the pieces of land were merely with the permission of the respondents and as the

respondents in need of the pieces of land for construction of Bus Stand and the land in question was required for their own purposes and as such

the writ be dismissed.

By virtue of an order dt. 21480, it was directed that the status quo shall be maintained by the parties on the spot. It was however, brought to the

notice of the court by an 'application supported by an affidavi ffiled by the petitioners that the respondents have taken law into their own hands and

have demolished the structures which they have built on the piece of land and this was done in flagrant violation of the order of this court directing

the, parties to maintain status quo on spot. It was prasyed thus that notice for contempt be issued to the respondents and they be punished at for

the contempt committee by them. A notice was issued to the respdte. who in their replies stated that it were the petitioners themselves who

demolished the temporary structures which they had erected on the pieces of land so as to built up permanent structures.

It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners in the matter involving the contempt of this court should be disposed of and then

arguments should be heard with regards the writ petition itself

It have examined the file and have found that while the petitioners have alleged that the structures were removed in spite of this order of this

court by the respects, the latter have submitted that the structures were removed by the petitioners themselves so as to built new permanent

structures. Naturally this has become a question of fact as to whether the order of the court has been violated by the petitioners or by the

respondents and as such requires evidence to be recorded in the matter.

It was a fact that this court had ordered maintenance of status quo on spot meaning thereby that the structures existing on the pieces of land be

not removed or demolished from the place where they had been erected. It is now admitted on both the sides that the structures have been

removed. It is however, yet to be established as to which party removed the structure and disobeyed the orders of this court. The petitioners, who

alleged that the contempt has been committed have to lead the evidence and if need be the respondents shall also be called upon to lead the

evidence in this regard. In case the petitioner wants the assistance of the court in summoning the witnesses they are directed to furnish the list of

witnesses and deposit the expenses within 7 days from today and if it is done the witnesses shall be summoned for 3 9 1981.

The writ petition, itself is ripe for arguments and even part arguments have been heard but in case the petitioners succeed in their allegation, that

the contempt of the court has been committed and in spite of the orders of the court to the contrary the structures have been removed by the

respondents it was very likely that the nature and the manner of the disposal of the writ petition may undergo a change. It would therefore, not be

proper to dispose of the writ petition itself before orders are passed with regard to the contempt application. The writ petition, therefore, shall

come up for arguments after disposal of the contempt matter.

In case the petitioners fail to file the list of witnesses and deposit witness expenses etc. within 7 days from today they shall be given no other

opportunity for filing list or depositing the expenses. In that event the petitioners shall bring their witnesses themselves on the date fixed above, put

up on 3 9 81.