AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Sureshwar Thakur, J
"The petitioner makes a request to delete respondent No.4 from these proceedings. At his request, respondent No.4 is deleted from the proceedings.
Notice. Mr. R.S. Dogra, learned Senior Additional Advocate General, takes notice on behalf of respondents No.1 to 3.
The only plea of the petitioner is that the proceedings pending before the Sub-Divisional Magistrate-cum-Deputy Registrar, Sub-Division Nagrota Bagwan, District Kangra, be disposed off as expeditiously as possible. The proceedings are pending before the said authority since February, 2020.
Learned Senior Additional Advocate General submits that the said proceedings will be disposed off within a period of one month from today. The petition is disposed off in the aforesaid terms.
Pending miscellaneous applications are disposed off accordingly."
The afore hereinabove extracted order, makes it palpably clear, that the Sub Divisional Magistrate-cum-Deputy Registrar, Sub-Division Nagrota Bagwan, District Kangra, was enjoined to dispose of the lis, engaging the parties at contest, within a period of one month from 7.7.2021. However, the Officer concerned has delayed in making compliance with the afore order, as, made on 7.7.2021. Therefore, the petitioner becoming aggrieved, has through the institution of the instant petition before this Court, hence strived to constrain this Court, to, draw proceedings of contempt against the Officer concerned.
A reading of the reply on affidavit placed on record by the learned Additional Advocate General, especially paragraph 3 of preliminary submissions, which stands extracted hereinafter, does unveil, that the Officer concerned did not prima-facie intentionally or deliberately disobey the order made on 7.7.2021.
"That the delay in passing the aforesaid order dated 28.09.2021 is neither intentional nor deliberate by the replying Respondent. The day to day proceedings while dealing with the complaint of complainant/petitioner is enumerated hereunder for your kind perusal please. The petitioner moved an application on dated 15.07.2021 alongwith the order of Hon'ble High Court on dated 07.07.2021 thereafter, the case was proponded and fixed on dated 20.07.2021 for hearing. After hearing Tehsildar Nagrota Bagwan report was called on dated 24.07.2021 and on dated 29.07.2021 Tehsildar, Nagrota Bagwan report was received by the replying respondent. The complainant/petitioner moved an application under Order 10 Rule 1 CPC for impleading new Pradhan Smt. Arun Bala as necessary party. The case was fixed for arguments on dated 03.08.2021, 07.08.2021 and on dated 10.07.2021 respondent prayed for some time to lead the arguments. On dated 21.8.2021 an application was moved by the complainant/petitioner regarding correction of name of Pradhan Arun Bala instead of Anju Bala on dated 26.08.2021. An application u/o 6 rule 17 CPC for amendment in the application u/o 1 rule 10 CPC vide which the name of the Pradhan, Gram Panchayat Mumta is wrongly mentioned as "Anju Bala" instead of "Arun Bala" was moved on dated 31.08.2021 complainant/petitioner filed reply to application u/o 6 rule 17 CPC . Thereafter, the case was fixed on dated 07.09.2021 for final argument. However, due to some administrative reason the argument could not be head and on dated 24.9.2021 the arguments were head and the case was fixed for orders on dated 28.09.2021 (copy of order is annexed as Annexure R-1."
However, despite a tangible explanation being meted by the Officer concerned, yet, the Officer concerned was required to, for the reasons set forth therein, of his hence being constrained to not mete compliance with the afore made order by this Court, rather access the Office of the learned Advocate General, for, seeking extension of time for his meteing compliance with the afore made order. The Officer concerned has omitted to do so, nonetheless the Officer concerned appears to be though acting bonafidely, yet for ensuring majesty of orders made by this Court, and, also compliance therewith by the respondent concerned, this Court deems it fit to make an unrecorded warning upon the SDM concerned rather to be careful in future. Moreover, the lis concerned, if not terminated, be ensured to be completely terminated within one month hereafter.
In view of the above, the present petition stands disposed of alongwith all pending applications.