Surender Pal Singh vs Ram Kishan

Shiv Narayan Dhingra, J.—The petitioner has preferred this contempt petition u/s 11 and 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act for violation of directions given by this Court vide order dated 22nd January 2003 in Civil Writ Petition No. 3490 of 2001. Following directions were given to the respondent by this Court in the above writ petition:

As there is no legal impediment in mutating the said land in favour of the petitioner and respondent no.2/DDA is simply to act upon the aforesaid judgment and decree dated 26th May, 1969 passed by the this Court which has been upheld till Supreme Court, this writ petition is disposed of with direction to the respondent DDA to take an action on the application of the applicant within two months from the date of receipt of copy of this Order and give effect to the said judgment by passing necessary mutation order.

After passing of these directions, the petitioner had made an application to the respondent/DDA for mutation of the said land in his favour in terms of the judgment and decree dated 26th May, 1969. During pendency of instant contempt petition, this Court had again given directions to the respondent DDA to act in accordance with the judgment vide order dated 28th May 2007 and directed respondent Assistant Collector-II to do the needful and pass necessary order on or before 8th October 2007 and file affidavit. The Assistant Collector passed an order on 26th October 2007 thereby refusing to mutate the property in the name of the petitioner on the ground that the changed/allotted Khasra No. mentioned in the Court order were not comparable from the record of the Assistant Collector and so it could not be entered into the revenue record and the application of the petitioner for mutation cannot be accepted and secondly that the judgment of the Civil Court was not binding on the respondent and only revenue courts can decide such matters. Since the petitioner had applied for changing the ownership on the basis of order passed by the Civil Court, the same cannot be looked into.

In the affidavit in response to show cause notice and written submission given by the respondent it is submitted that no contempt was made out. The contention is that the contempt petition was filed in respect of the order dated 22nd January 2003 in the year 2004 by the father of the petitioner. However, the same was dismissed in default due to death of father of the petitioner. The petitioner moved an application for bringing on record the Lrs of his father which was also dismissed for non prosecution in CCP No. 335 of 2004. Then Mr. Harpal Singh started appearing in this contempt petition which was already dismissed for non prosecution and then the instant petition was filed and this was barred by time.

The second submission made by the respondent is that the petitioner failed to attend the hearings to clarify and give supporting documents despite repeated opportunities. The Assistant Collector passed the order dated 26th October 2007 based on examination of documents, records available with the revenue department of GNCTD as well as record in custody of the respondent and the respondent vide its order dated 26th October 2007 held that the claim of the petitioner for mutation was incorrect and his application could not be accepted. It is submitted that since the application for mutation was dismissed on merits following due process of law and the respondent has passed a reasoned order, the petitioner has an opportunity to challenge this order and no contempt was made out. The other stand, taken is that in view of Section 158 (2) (vi) of the Punjab Act, the jurisdiction of the civil court has been excluded in the revenue matters and the civil court could not have been taken cognizance of the revenue matter. Therefore, the order of the civil court was not to be looked into by the respondent. The reliance was placed on Hatti Vs. Sunder Singh, and Gaon Sabha and Another Vs. Nathi and Others,

The arguments advanced by the respondent for non compliance of the orders and the Courts are bereft of any substance. The respondent had contested the suit right up to the Supreme Court. The respondent''s contention that the Civil Court had no jurisdiction was rejected by the appellate court as well as by the Supreme Court by dismissing its SLP Having failed right up to the Supreme Court, the respondent cannot now take the ground that the decree was not binding on the respondent. The judgment passed by this Court, in Suit No. 280 of 1967 decided on 26th May 1969 would show that this issue was raised by the respondent that this Court had no jurisdiction in the matter and issue of jurisdiction was termed as the preliminary issue and vide order dated 18th August 1961, the issue was decided in favour of the plaintiff (petitioner herein). Once this issue has been conclusively determined, the respondent''s plea that this Court had no jurisdiction does not hold water. The respondent was bound to act on the decision of the court. The other plea taken by the respondent that the record was not comparable, is also a baseless plea. A perusal of the judgment dated 26th May, 1969 would show that the court had discussed all records of revenue department made available and produced by the respondent and the plaintiff. After going through the record of revenue rights from the year 1880 till the filing of suit, including settlement records of 1880, 1908, 1909, 1918, 1919, Court had given decision on merits regarding title over the property. After the Court had held the petitioner as part owner, it does not lie in the mouth of the respondent to say that the record was not available or the records available were not comparable or that the old Khasra number could not be compared with the Khasra number.

This case reflects a total arrogant attitude of the respondent Assistant Collector-II and the respondent has given into himself authority superior than the Supreme Court and had deliberately defied the judgment of this Court upheld right up to the Supreme Court and had deliberately defied the directions given by this Court in the writ petition. There cannot be more contemptuous attitude other than this of the respondent. The respondent after losing the issue of jurisdiction right up to the Supreme Court, has refused to mutate the property on one of the grounds of jurisdiction and other frivolous grounds like non availability of the comparable records. The attitude of the respondent is deliberate contempt and leads to a willful disobedience of the judgment of this Court and is bound to erode the authority of the Courts in pronouncement and adjudication of disputes. Once a dispute is adjudicated by the competent Court and the decision is upheld right up to the Supreme Court, State has no option but to implement the decision. Deliberate non implementation of the decision would make the Courts irrelevant and the people shall lose faith in the entire judicial system.

The issue of limitation raised by the respondent is also a non-issue. So long as the judgment is not implemented, the cause of action survives and only when the authority refuses to implement the judgment, the period of limitation will start. In this case; the respondent refused to implement the judgment initially by not entertaining the application of the petitioner and then by passing order refusing to implement the judgment. The contempt petition is thus within a period of limitation.

I consider that the respondent in this case deserves exemplary punishment for deliberate defiance of the order of the Court. The contempt petition is hereby allowed. The respondent, Dinesh Kumar, Assistant Collector-II is sentenced to six months'' simple civil imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 2,000/-. The respondent is directed to surrender himself before the Superintendent, Tihar Jail No. 1. If the respondent does not surrender within three weeks, the SHO of Police Station, Tilak Marg is directed to arrest the respondent Dinesh Kumar, Assistant Collector-II, under warrants of this Court, and lodge him to Tihar Jail No. 1 for undergoing the sentence awarded. The contempt petition stands disposed of.