Thomlin Surong & Ors vs Persara Manner & Ors

The petitioners herein, seven in number, have filed this contempt petition alleging wilful disobedience and violation of the orders passed by this

Court in WP(C) No. 240 of 2014, WP(C) No. 51 of 2015, and WP(C) No. 10 of 2016.

Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and having perused the material placed on record, this Court is unable to find any reason to

initiate contempt proceedings against the respondents; but it appears appropriate to leave it open for the petitioners to take recourse of appropriate

remedy in accordance with law.

In brief, the relevant background aspects of the matter could be noticed in the following: The petitioner No. 1 claims to be the headman of

Amlanai Village, Elaka Satpator, West Jaintia Hills District. With the submissions that Amlanai village was established by the forefathers and

mothers of the villagers in the year 1936, it is alleged that the petitioners/farmers had been cultivating the land encompassed within the boundaries

stated in paragraph 3 of the petition. The petitioners/farmers have been disputing the demand of Zamindari tax/fees by the respondents No. 1, 2

and 3, the alleged land owners; and this has led to a web of litigation between the parties. It appears that the respondents No. 1, 2 and 3 filed a

suit for declaration and permanent injunction in the Court of Subordinate Judge of the District Council Court, Jowai, being Title Suit No. 21 of

2011 and therein, an application for interim injunction was also filed. According to the petitioners, the said prayer for interim injunction was

declined by the Court concerned in its order dated 31.08.2012 with the finding that the petitioners/farmers were in possession of the land but the

parties were directed to maintain status quo. The petitioners have further pointed out that the said title suit was withdrawn on 07.11.2012 and

thereafter, the respondents No. 1, 2 and 3 filed another title suit bearing No. 18 of 2013, which is pending. It appears that despite pendency of

such a civil suit, there had been multiplication of disputes between the parties. Some police action was also attempted against the petitioners

whereupon, they filed a writ petition bearing No. 240 of 2014 in this Court wherein, by the order dated 11.08.2014, status quo was ordered to be

maintained.

According to the petitioners, there had been further attempt to forcibly evict them whereupon, they filed an FIR against the respondents and also

filed the writ petition bearing No. 51 of 2015 in this Court for directions to the police authorities for taking action on the FIR lodged by them, for

assessment of loss to the farmers, and for adequate compensation. Both the aforesaid writ petitions were disposed of by the order dated

17.06.2016. The learned Single Judge of this Court took note of the reply submissions made by the present respondents that they had not made

any attempt to forcibly evict the petitioners nor would they make any such attempt and that they will take recourse to the due process of law. The

said writ petitions were disposed of with the following observations and directions:

Since the respondents filed an affidavit and assured that, they are not going to evict the petitioners forcefully, but will abide by the process of law,

I think there is nothing more to direct. Now, so far as the compensation and damage is concerned, let the Deputy Commissioner, West Jaintia Hills

District conduct an enquiry whether there was any damage of betel nuts and broom sticks of the petitioners by the respondents No. 5, 6 and 7 and

to make an assessment of the loss if any and to submit a report to the trial court below. While conducting the said enquiry, the Deputy

Commissioner, West Jaintia Hills District must clarify who is responsible for the damages if any. Similarly, the Superintendent of Police, West

Jaintia Hills District is also directed if any FIR is filed, that to be dealt with impartially in accordance with law.

The learned counsel for both the parties agreed with the observation made by this court. Accordingly, the instant WP(C) No. 51 of 2015 and

WP(C) No. 240 of 2014 stands disposed of by this common order with further direction that, nobody should be evicted forcefully without

following the due process of law.

With this observation and direction these instant writ petitions stands disposed of.

However, it appears that yet another writ petition bearing No. 10 of 2016 was filed that was found suffering from a fundamental defect that out

of 56 writ petitioners named therein, 4 of them had already expired even before filing of the petition. By the order dated 04.07.2016 (which is to

be read with the order dated 05.10.2016 in the review petition bearing No. 8 of 2016), the learned Single Judge allowed the petitioners to

withdraw from the said writ petition bearing No. 10 of 2016 with liberty to file afresh. The learned Single Judge, however, again directed both the

parties not to disturb each other without due process of law and also directed the learned Subordinate District Council Court, Jowai to dispose of

the title suit bearing No. 18 of 2013 expeditiously. The order dated 04.07.2016 reads as under:

Mr. B.Khyriem, learned counsel appeared for and on behalf of the applicants and moved the Misc. Case bearing MC[WP(C)]No. 104 of 2016

and submits that the petitioner in the WP(C) No. 10 of 2016 has already expired prior to the filing of this instant writ petition. Thus, he prayed that

he may be allowed to withdraw the WP(C) No. 10 of 2016 with a liberty to file afresh, to which Mr. H. Abraham, learned counsel for the

respondents No. 5-7 and Mr. S. Sen Gupta, learned Addl. Sr. GA for the State respondents No. 1-4 have no objection.

However, before parting with this case record, Successors of both sides are hereby directed not to disturb each other without due process of law.

The learned counsel for the respondents No. 5-7 also submits that the Title Suit No. 18 of 2013 is pending before the Presiding Officer

Subordinate District Council Court, Jowai for a long time. The concerned Court is hereby directed to dispose of the matter expeditiously. With this

observation and direction, this Misc. Case is allowed and stands disposed of and the WP(C) No. 10 of 2016 is hereby dropped on being

withdrawn.

As noticed, the aforesaid order was corrected by the order dated 05.10.2016 in the review petition bearing No. 8 of 2016, whereby, the word

petitioner appearing in the order was corrected, to be read as 4 named petitioners.

Now, in this contempt petition, the petitioners seek to submit that the Incharge Muktapur Police Post, Amlarem Sub Division summoned them

on 24.01.2017 upon receiving of the FIR dated 18.01.2017. The said FIR, according to the petitioners, is an attempt by the respondents No. 1, 2

and 3 to violate the order passed by the Court and in breach of the undertaking given to the Court. The petitioners have also referred to a

clarification submitted to the police post and seek to submit that if the broomstick which they had cultivated, are not allowed to be plucked, they

would suffer irreparable injury. It has also been stated that the earlier writ petition bearing No. 10 of 2016 was filed because the petitioners could

not pluck the broomstick on account of the threat of respondents No. 1, 2 and 3. With these submissions, the petitioners assert that there is a wilful

disobedience of the order passed by this Court.

In a comprehension of the relevant background aspects, it is but clear that there is a civil dispute between the parties, particularly as regards

cultivation of the land in question regarding which, a title suit is pending in the Court of the Subordinate District Council Court, Jowai bearing No.

18 of 2013. The respondents have allegedly filed an FIR, inter alia, stating that some of the persons were forcibly plucking broomstick from the

land in dispute and they have alleged violation of the status quo order of the Court. It is clear that so far the petitioners are concerned, in their

earlier writ petitions bearing No. 240 of 2014 and 51 of 2015, this Court took note of the submissions of the respondents that they will not forcibly

evict the petitioners and other aspects were left open, to be processed in accordance with law including the assessment of compensation as also

the proceedings in FIR, if filed. So far their apprehension is concerned, the petitioners did file the writ petition bearing No. 10 of 2016, which was

fundamentally defective and sought permission to withdraw with liberty to file afresh. The petitioners have not filed any fresh writ petition in this

Court.

In the totality of circumstances, when it is not the case of the petitioners that they have been forcibly evicted from the land in question, so far the

orders passed by this Court are concerned, no case of deliberate disobedience is made out. As regards their grievance, obviously, the recourse to

appropriate proceedings is always open for the petitioners and in that regard, this Court would not make any other comment except leaving it open

for the petitioners to take recourse to appropriate proceedings in accordance with law.

Thus, when no case of deliberate disobedience is made out, this contempt petition stands rejected with the observations foregoing.