CACP No. 6 of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CACP No. 6 of 2010 (O&M) Date of decision: July 6, 2011 Vikram Singh ...Appellant Versus Gram Panchayat Village Chandiala ...Respondent CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M. KUMAR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GURDEV SINGH Present: Mr. OP Goyal, Senior Advocate, with Mr. KS Chahal, Advocate, for the appellant. Mr. TS Bhandowal, Advocate, for the respondent. 1. To be referred to the Reporter or not ? 2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest ? GURDEV SINGH, J. This appeal under Clause 19 (1) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') has been preferred by the appellant-Vikram Singh against the order dated 25.10.2010 passed by the learned Single Judge in COCP No. 2046 of 2009, vide which the appellant was given an opportunity to purge the contempt petition by depositing the licence fee in respect of area measuring 40.760 acres to the Mining Department and to the Gram Panchayat within a period of three weeks from CACP No. 6 of 2010 2 the date of passing of the order, failing which he was directed to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of four months and to pay a fine of ` 2,000/- and in default thereof, to further undergo imprisonment for a period of one month. However, the order imposing the sentence was suspended for a period of three weeks, in view of the fact that he was allowed that period for depositing the licence fee. The facts, in brief, are that the Gram Panchayat of village Chandiala, Tehsil Dera Bassi, District SAS Nagar had 195 bighas 13 biswas land in the bed of river Ghaggar, which was leased out to the appellant in an open auction on 28.3.2008 for a period of two years, @ ` 1 crore per annum. He was liable to pay 1/3rd of the lease money to the Gram Panchayat as its share. He started excavation from the land in dispute and paid only two installments of ` 3,38,462/- each. He filed CWP No. 7366 of 2008 in this Court for reduction of lease money, which was decided on 17.9.2009 and the lease money was reduced from ` 1 crore per annum to ` 70 lakhs per annum. At the time of the decision of the writ petition, the following settlement was arrived at between the parties:- 1. That contract of petitioner for quarry of village Chadiala of District Mohali for a period 9.4.2008 to 31.3.2010 shall be @ Rs. 70 lacs per annum in place of @ Rs. 100 lacs per annum for the area 195 bighas 13 biswa (40.760 acres) of the quarry and the contract will be governed by terms and conditions of auction notification and the Punjab Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1964 shall be applicable. 2. That petitioners will clear the arrears of the due CACP No. 6 of 2010 3 installments and TDS from 9.4.2008 i.e. the date of commencement of contract upto the date of passing of the orders and the amount will be deposited with G.M.-cum- Mining Officer, Mohali within a period of one month from the date of passing of the orders by this Court as per rules. 3. That petitioner will execute a mandatory contract agreement in form 'L' as per Punjab Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1964 with Responding State within a period of one month from date of passing the order by this Court. 4. The petitioner shall disburse the compensation amongst land owners in due observance to auction Notification dated 20.2.2008 and PMMC Rules, 1964. Inspite of that the appellant did not deposit the balance amount either with the G.M.-cum-Mining Officer, Mohali or with the Panchayat. For having violated the undertaking wilfully and deliberately, the Gram Panchayat filed the contempt petition under Sections 11 and 12 of the Act for initiating proceedings against him in accordance with law. Detailed reply was filed by the appellant. He admitted therein that he had taken the land described in the contempt petition in an open auction @ ` 1 crore per annum and that he had deposited the installments with the Gram Panchayat. He also admitted filing of the above said writ petition and the order passed therein. He denied the other contentions made in the petition and pleaded that a fraud was committed upon him as no such land measuring 195.13 acres was available at the spot and that fraud was CACP No. 6 of 2010 4 committed upon him by the State of Punjab. Only an area of 20 acres was lying vacant and available for mining purpose. The other area was under illegal occupation of the villagers, which fact was admitted by the State of Punjab in the writ petition. It was in those circumstances that he agreed for reducing the lease money from ` 1 crore per annum to `70 lakhs per annum. For delivery of mining area of 40.760 acres, the Department of Industries, Punjab had been persistently writing to the Tehsildar and other authorities for demarcation. The petitioner-Gram Panchayat continued in illegal possession of the land as also continued to sell it illegally. It even failed to give 40.76 acres of land to him for mining purposes. He is still ready and willing to deposit the balance amount with the petitioner-Gram Panchayat, provided the possession of the land so agreed is given to him for mining purposes. After going through the records of the case and hearing learned counsel for both the sides, learned Single Judge did not agree with the contentions of the appellant and while accepting the contentions of the petitioner refused to accept the unqualified apology tendered by the appellant, recorded his finding that the appellant was guilty of the contempt of Court and passed the above said order. We have heard learned counsel for both the sides. It has been submitted by Shri O.P. Goyal, learned senior counsel on behalf of the appellant that the appellant is still ready to pay the lease money @ ` 70 lakhs per annum so agreed, vide order passed in the writ petition, provided 40.76 acres of land is made available to him. In fact, only 20 acres of land was made available to him for the purposes of mining and the remaining land is in illegal possession of the Gram Panchayat- CACP No. 6 of 2010 5 petitioner and the villagers. It cannot be said that there is such wilful disobedience of the undertaking given to the Court, as the appellant himself is a victim of the fraud committed by the petitioner. He prayed for acceptance of the appeal and setting aside the sentence so imposed upon the appellant. On the other hand, it has been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner-Gram Panchayat that the plea of the appellant that only 20 acres of land was available with him for mining purpose is false. He was given possession of 40.76 acres of land and it was on that ground that he agreed to pay the lease money @ ` 70 lakhs per annum, during the settlement arrived at before this Court at the time of the disposal of the writ petition. Had the appellant not been in possession of that area of land, he would not have agreed to pay the lease money at that rate. There is no ground for disagreeing with the findings recorded by the learned Single Judge. A practice is being adopted by such like contractors to wriggle out of their liability to pay the lease money. Firstly they do excavation from the mining area and then make one or the other excuse not to pay the agreed lease money. The appellant himself filed CWP No. 7366 of 2008 for issuance of a writ to the State of Punjab and the Department of Industries for reduction of the lease money on the ground that a fraud has been committed with him. In the writ petition, he contended that it was revealed by the Gram Panchayat that only 20 acres of land was lying vacant and it was that land which was made available to him for mining purposes and the other mining land was under illegal occupation of some other persons, who were litigating before the Court. He pleaded that on 30.4.2008 the Mining CACP No. 6 of 2010 6 Officer, Department of Industries, Punjab, gave him Khasra numbers of the total area of the land which was auctioned in his favour and he was shocked to see that the total area so revealed by the Mining Officer was 24.546 acres. Thus, according to him, the said area was made available to him for mining purposes. The writ petition was disposed of with the consent of the parties on 17.9.2009 in which the above said settlement was arrived at between them. In view of that settlement, it cannot be said that there is any force in the arguments advanced by the learned senior counsel for the appellant. He even failed to pay the reduced lease money and, thus, wilfully disobeyed the undertaking given to the Court. The intention of the appellant is to avoid payment of the agreed lease money. We do not find any ground to differ with the findings recorded by the learned Single Judge, which are based upon sound reasoning. There is, thus, no merit in this appeal and the same is hereby dismissed. (M.M. KUMAR) (GURDEV SINGH ) JUDGE JUDGE July 6, 2011 prem