IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATRUE AT PATNA (MISCELLANEOUS JUDICIAL CASE) M.J.C. No. 331 of 2008 (Arising out of C.W.J.C. No. 13740 of 2004) (suo motu contempt proceeding against Udaykant Jha, LRDC Uda, Kisanganj, Madhepura Respondent No.4 in C.W.J.C. No. 13740 of 2004) ***** For the State :- Standing Counsel Ceiling For the Contemnor Opposite Party :- Mr. Ashok Kumar Chaudhary, Advocate Mr. Sharda Nanda Mishra, Advocate ******* P R E S E N T THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MIHIR KUMAR JHA M. K. Jha, J :- This contempt proceeding has been drawn suo- motu by this Court by an order dated 22.1.2008. The order of this Court dated 22.1.2008 in CWJC No. 13740 of 2004 drawing the contempt proceedings being relevant is quoted hereinbelow:- “Earlier this case had been permitted to be withdrawn on an oral prayer of learned counsel for the Petitioner who failed to bring the Court’s order dated 6.7.2005 to my notice whereby and whereunder Respondent No.4 was directed to file show cause as to why he should not be held guilty for committing the contempt of this Court for passing an order contrary to the direction given in the earlier case C.W.J.C. No. 718 of 1996. As a matter of fact the order of this Court dated 6.7.2005 has not been complied as yet by Respondent No.4. Counsel 2 for Respondent No.4 Sri Sarda Nand Mishra, however, in view of his prayer is allowed time to file a show cause reply on behalf of Respondent No.4 within a period of two weeks in compliance of the order of the Court dated 6.7.2005. Let office draw a suo motu contempt proceeding in terms of the order dated 6.7.2005 against Respondent No.4 and place the matter after a period of two weeks along with the records of this case.” It would thus appear that a Bench of this Court while hearing a writ application C.W.J.C. No. 13740/2004 by an order dated 6.7.2005 had taken cognizance of the contempt committed by Udaykant Jha, LRDC, Kisanganj, Madhepura. The order of this Court dated 6.7.2005 which in fact was passed for drawing the suo motu contempt is reproduced hereinbelow:- “Issue notice to Respondent Nos.4 and 5 to show cause why relief(s) prayed for in this case may not be allowed. Notices will go both by ordinary process and by register post, talbana etc. and other requisites for which must be filed within one week failing which this application as against the concerned Respondents shall stand rejected without further reference to a Bench. Put up on service of notice. Here it may be noted that Respondent No.4 who was the Land Reforms Deputy Collector, Uda-Kishunganj in January, 2004 is 3 the author of the impugned order dated 11.01.2004 (Annexure-8). From a perusal of the order, it appears that the order has been passed in deliberate, disobedience and disregard of the direction of this Court in C.W.J.C. No. 718 of 1996 arising from the same proceeding. He is, therefore, directed to file a show cause why a proceeding of contempt may not be initiated against him. The show cause, if any, must be filed before the case is next taken up. It may further be recorded that the Court proposes to dispose of this case at the admission stage.” As a matter of fact, after the notices in C.W.J.C. No. 13740/2004 was served on Respondent Nos. 4 & 5, a prayer was made at the time of mentioning for withdrawal of the aforesaid writ application and this Court by an order dated 18.1.2008 recording the statement of Sri D.K.Singh, learned counsel for the Petitioner had accorded permission for withdrawal of this case. However, when it came to the notice of this Court that the earlier order of this Court dated 6.7.2005 had not been complied and in fact Uday Kant Jha, the respondent no.4 in CWJC No. 13740/2004 had not even filed the show cause as directed in the aforesaid order dated 6.7.2005, the proceeding for suo motu contempt has been initiated in the present case as recorded in the order dated 22.1.2008 already quoted above. A brief background therefore would be necessary to 4 understand and adjudicate the nature of contempt committed by Uday Kant Jha, the then Deputy Collector Land Reforms, Uda-Kishunganj, Madhepura (hereafter to be referred to as “Contemnor Opposite Party”) who was made party by name as Respondent No.4 in C.W.J.C. No. 13740/2004. The aforementioned writ application C.W.J.C. No. 13740/2004 had been filed by one Satya Narayan Yadav against an order dated 11.9.2004 passed by the Contemnor Opposite Party in Preemption Case No. 8/1989-90. The said order dated 11.9.2004 according to the Writ Petitioner was in breach and violation of the earlier order of this Court dated 29.6.1998 in C.W.J.C. No. 718/1996. From the records of C.W.J.C. No. 13740/2004, it emanates that one Jayanti Devi, wife of Sri Shyamanand Jha on 20.11.1989 had purchased five Kathas of land in Mauza Sarauni within Kishunganj Anchal in the district of Madhepura from one Maheshwari Sah on payment of Rs. 5,000/- as consideration money. Thereafter, the aforementioned Satya Narayan Yadav claiming to be adjoining Raiyat of the land in question purchased by Smt. Jayanti Devi, had filed an application for preemption under Section 16(3) of Bihar Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling Area and Acquisition of Surplus Land) Act, 1961 (hereafter to be referred to as the Act) on 19.2.1990 after complying of the provisions including depositing a sum of Rs. 5,500/- by way 5 of treasury challan. On the said application of Satya Narayan Yadav, a preemption case L.C. Case No. 8/1989-90 was registered in the Court of Deputy Collector Land Reforms Uday Kant Jha, Uda Kishunganj, Madhepura and Satya Narayan Yadav was also put in possession by an order dated 21.3.1990 in terms of Section 16(3) of the Act. Subsequently, the preemption application of Satya Narayan Yadav was however rejected by an order dated 28.5.1990 by the then Deputy Collector Land Reforms Uday Kant Jha, Uda Kishunganj, Madhepura. Thereafter Satya Narayan Yadav filed appeal being Appeal No. 14/1990 before the Collector of Madhepura district and the Collector of Madhepura after hearing the parties had set aside the order of the Deputy Collector Land Reforms, Madhepura dated 28.5.1990 and it remanded the case for fresh disposal by Deputy Collector Land Reforms, Uda Kishunganj, Madhepura. After such remand, the Deputy Collector Land Reforms, Uda Kishunganj having heard the parties had once again rejected the claim of preemption of Satya Narayan Yadav by an order dated 10.6.1993/17.6.1993 and this order was once again made a subject matter of appeal before the Collector, Madhepura in L.C. Case No. 2/1993-94. This time, the Collector of Madhepura district had allowed the appeal of Satya Narayan Yadav by an order dated 31.10.1994 and in the process, the claim of preemption of 6 Satya Narayan Yadav was upheld. The operative portion of the appellate order passed by the Collector of Madhepura district in the appeal filed by Satya Narayan Yadav in the order dated 31.10.1994 has a direct bearing on the issues involved in this contempt application and is quoted hereinbelow:- “Therefore, the case of the appellant is genuine as the ingredients of Section 16(3) applies to this case. Giving my anxious consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case, the order passed by the learned lower court dated 10.6.93/17.6.93 is set aside and the appeal is allowed. The Respondent will execute Kebalas in favour of the appellant within 30 days of this order. Besides this the appellant will pay the cost of the trees planted by the Respondent the cost of which will evaluated by S.D.O., Uda-Kishunganj and the increased cost of the land which is now prevalent in the registration of the documents. With the above direction the appeal is allowed.” The Preemptor Satya Narayan Yadav being aggrieved by the last portion of the order by which he was asked to pay the increased price of land at the present market value to the purchaser Jayanti Devi as also the cost of the trees allegedly planted by her during the pendency of the preemption proceedings, had moved this Court in C.W.J.C. No. 718/1996. This Court after hearing the parties by an 7 order dated 29.6.1998 had disposed of the aforementioned writ application with the following findings and direction as quoted hereinbelow:- “The provision of re-conveyance of land on an application by adjoining raiyat has been laid down under Section 16(3) of the Act therein specific provision has been made to make such application before the Collector in prescribed manner for the transfer of the land on the terms and conditions contained in the sale deed. As there is no power vested with the Collector or the appellate authority to ask for more cost including the increase rate, I hold that the last portion of the impugned order dated 31.10.94 (Annexure-3) directing the Petitioner to pay cost at the increase rate for the land as illegal. Accordingly, the last part of the order dated 31.10.94 (Annexure-3) asking the Petitioner to pay cost of the land at increase rate is set aside and the writ petition is allowed.” It appears that after the said order was passed by this Court, Satya Narayan Yadav could not get the benefit of the remaining part of the appellate order allowing his preemption application by the Collector of Madhepura district vide his order dated 31.10.1994 and it was after a long gap of more than five years that the Collector of Madhepura district woke up from slumber and had passed an order dated 9.8.2003 directing the L.R.D.C., Uda- Kishunganj to implement the appellate order dated 8 31.10.1994 as modified by this Court in the order dated 29.6.1998. The operative portion of the order dated 9.8.2003 being relevant for the purposes of this case is also quoted hereinbelow:- ^^ekuuh; U;k;ky; us mijksDr vkns'k ds vk/kkj ij viykFkhZ us lekgRrkZ ls vuqjks/k fd;k gS fd la'kksf/kr vkns'k ikfjr fd;k tk;sA vihykFkhZ ds vuqjks/k ij fnukad 10-11-2000 dks okn esa dkjZokbZ izkjEHk dh x;hA foi{kh dks Hkh uksfV'k fn;k x;kA foi{kh us uksfV'k ysus ls bUdkj fd;k gS] ,slh lwpuk nh x;h gSA vr% ekuuh; mPp U;k;ky; }kjk fn;s x;s vkns'k ds vkyksd esa vihykFkhZ dks lquk x;k rFkk muds }kjk izLrqr dkxtkrksa dk voyksdu fd;k x;kA lekgRrkZ }kjk Jh ,fj;k flfyax okn la[;k 2@93&94 esa fn;s x;s vkns'k fnukad 31- 10-94 ds fo:) dksbZ vihy mRrjoknh }kjk nkf[ky dh x;h gks ,slk fn[kkbZ ugha nsrk gSA vr% mDr vkns'k esa yxk;s x;s isM+ dh vfrfjDr fder izfroknh dks nsus dk vkns'k lekIr djrs gq, vU; vkns'k ds fdz;kUo;u gsrq vkns'k fn;k tkrk gS bl izdkj bl okn dks fu"iknu fd;k tkrk gSA** At the relevant point of time when the Collector, Madhepura had passed his order dated 9.8.2003, the Contemnor Opposite Party was the Deputy Collector Land Reforms, Uda-Kishunganj, Madhepura and therefore it was 9 he who was directed to implement the order of the Collector, Madhepura dated 31.10.1994 as modified by the order of this Court dated 29.6.1998. It had been asserted by Satya Narayan Yadav that the Contemnor Opposite Party after receipt of the order of the aforementioned order of the Collector, Madhepura dated 9.8.2003, had passed an order dated 18.1.2004 by which he had issued notice to Satya Narayan Yadav, Preemptor as also to Smt. Jayanti Devi, the purchaser for implementation of the order i.e. for executing the order in favour of the Satya Narayan Yadav by directing Jayanti Devi, the purchaser to execute the sale deed in favour of Satya Narayan Yadav and upon refusal of the Jayanti Devi, purchaser, to convey the land by executing sale deed in favour of the Satya Narayan Yadav by the Deputy Collector Land Reforms himself. Satya Narayan Yadav in fact had also appeared in response to the said notice dated 18.1.2004 and had filed an application on 10.2.2004 that he was prepared to submit the draft copy of the sale deed as also the cost of registration which should be executed by Deputy Collector Land Reforms. It however transpires form the records that Smt. Jayanti Devi had also appeared before the Contemnor Opposite Party, holding the post of Deputy Collector Land Reforms, Uda-Kishunganj, Madhepura and had filed an objection (written statement) in which she had virtually questioned not only the order of 10 the Collector dated 31.10.1998 but also the order of this Court dated 29.6.1998 by taking following pleas:- (i) In term of the order of the High Court which had set aside only the last part of the order of the Collector dated 31.10.1994, there was still a scope left to her to go before the competent authority if so desired. (ii) The issues which were decided against Satya Narayan Yadav in the findings of appellate order passed by the Collector and were not disturbed by the High Court, could still be made subject matter of a fresh case at her instance before the competent court. (iii) Satya Narayan Yadav, the preemptor cannot be delivered the possession of the land through the process of Court because she had already filed Title Suit No. 82/2000 in the Court of Subordinate Judge in which Satya Narayan Yadav had already appeared and had filed his written statement which made the matter subjudice before the competent court involving the same issue between the same parties and as such no action could be taken for delivery of possession of any action in purported compliance of the order of the High Court. 11 (iv) Such conveyance of the sale deed by the process of Court was also barred by the provisions of Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act which according to her barred any transaction or any action during the pendency of her civil suit as the same could give rise to a series of complication of setting aside and restitution etc. (v) Right of preemption being a weak right has a limited scope and when the entire price of land and the tress planted by her has been claimed in the civil suit by way of mesne profit the same was required to be considered by the Civil Court alone in the pending civil suit. (vi) She was in possession of the land in question after its purchase from her vendor who had sworn an affidavit explaining the circumstances in which he had sold the land to her in preference to Satya Narayan Yadav despite his being an adjoining Raiyat and that she continued to be in possession by virtue of such purchase and had planted several trees which cannot be severed without paying adequate price (compensation) to her. (vii) The suit filed by her was actually not against 12 the verdict of the High Court rather the same involved several other question of law pertaining to her title and possession which in her opinion was maintainable in law. (viii) The claim of Satya Narayan Yadav for being conveyed the land in question and given possession thereof cannot be allowed without payment of advaloram court fee by Satya Narayan Yadav keeping in view that she being a lady is not the coparcener of the family and has been recognized under Hindu Law as a stranger and a stranger having dominion with perfect right, title and possession cannot be brought within the ambit of Ceiling Act. (ix) The application filed by Satya Narayan Yadav under Section 16(3) of the Act was not maintainable because her vendor had firstly requested Satya Narayan Yadav to purchase the land and when despite several requests by her vendor Satya Narayan Yadav refused to purchase the land, the vendor had executed the sale deed in her favour. (x) In terms of the order 20 rule 12 of the C.P.C., she is entitled to benefit of expenditure made over the land in question including the price of 13 valuable plants of Sisam, Kadam and several other tress worth lacks of rupees and as such Satya Narayan Yadav is bound to give adequate price of trees. (xi) As the issue has not been finally adjudicated by competent civil court, any action under the Ceiling Act for implementing the order of the High Court with regard to any transaction and delivery of possession in respect of land in question is not permissible being forbidden by law. (xii) In the pending civil suit filed by her before the competent civil court, the law of equity, natural justice and other laws are to be considered, which are in her favour. (xiii) As a consequence of delivery of possession, the trees planted by her as found in the order of the Collector would be cut by Satya Narayan Yadav who has no right to cut away the trees and as such the only recourse for the Deputy Collector Land Reforms would be to wait for the order of the Civil Court. This Court in fact is amazed with the ingenious and fertile litigating mind of Jayanti Devi, the purchaser of the land who either by her own or under the legal advice had 14 gone to make a prayer in the aforementioned objection petition that the implementation of the order of the High Court should be stayed and kept in abeyance to meet the ends of justice till the disposal of Title Suit No. 82/2000. It was on this objection petition of Jayanti Devi, Purchaser, that the Contemnor Opposite Party had passed the order dated 11.9.2004 dealing exhaustively with the aforementioned pleas of Jayanti Devi and the operative portion of the order which gave rise to this contempt application, reads as follows:- ^^mHk; i{kksa ds foK vf/koDrkvksa dks lquus ,oa muds }kjk lefiZr dkxtkrksa ds voyksdu ls ;g rF; mtkxj gksrk gS fd gdlQk dk dkuwu void gS vFkok ugha] ij fu.kZ; ysus esa ;g U;k;ky; l{ke ugha gSA izfroknh vxj pkgs rks blds fy, l{ke U;k;ky; esa viuk nkok nk;j dj ldrs gSA mHk; i{kksa ds foK vf/koDrk dks lquus ,oa dkxtkrksa dks ns[kus ls ;g fufoZokn :i ls lR; izrhr gksrk gS fd izfroknh }kjk fooknh Hkwfe ij o`{k yxk;k x;k gS ftldh iqf"V Hkwfe lq/kkj milekgrkZ ,oa lekgrkZ e/ksiqjk }kjk ikfjr vkns'k ls Hkh gksrh gSA ekuuh; mPp U;k;ky; }kjk lh0MCY;w0ts0lh0 ua0 718@96 esa fnukad 29-6-98 dks ikfjr vkns'k esa Hkw&gncanh ds /kkjk 16¼3½ ds rgr lekgrkZ] e/ksiqjk }kjk fooknh Hkwfe esa yxs o`{k ds ewY; ds lkFk tks gLrkUrj.k djus dk funsZ'k fn;k x;k Fkk dks voS/k ekurs gq, fujLr dj fn;k x;k gSA ;g ckr lgh gS fd Hkwfe esa 15 yxs o`{k ;k vU; mense profit ds laca/k esa fu.kZ; ysus esa jktLo U;k;ky; l{ke ugha gSA o`{k ds ewY; ,oa fookn ls lacaf/kr vU; vuqRrfjr iz'u ds laca/k esa izfroknh }kjk LoRo okn la[;k 82@2000 nk;j fd;k x;k gS ftlesa oknh Hkh mifLFkr gksdj viuk fyf[kr c;ku nkf[ky dj pqds gSa ;kfu ekeyk subjudice gSA Vh0ih0,DV ds /kkjk 52 ds rgr lwV ds fopkjk/khu dh vof/k esa fd;k x;k gLrkUrj.k dks void ekuk x;k gSA vxj lekgrkZ] e/ksiqjk }kjk ikfjr vkns'k dk dk;kZUo;u fd;k tkrk gS rks fooknh Hkwfe esa yxs o`{k dks ysdj mHk; i{kksa ds chp esa fookn mRiUu gks ldrk gSA vr% tc rd fookfnr Hkwfe esa yxs o`{k ds ewY;ksa ,oa mense profit ds ckjs esa fu.kZ; ugha gks tkrk gS] rc rd ds fy;s oknh ds i{k esa dsokyk esa vafdr terms and condition ij U;k;ky; }kjk gLrkukUrj.k djus dk dksbZ Hkh vkSfpR; izrhr ugha gksrk gSA vr% okn dh vxzrj dkjZokbZ LoRo okn la0 82@2000 ds vafre :i ls fu"iknu rd ds fy;s LFkfxr dh tkrh gSA** (underlining by this Court for emphasis) It was the aforesaid order which was found to be prima-facie contemptuous by this Court in the order dated 6.7.2005 in CWJC No. 13740/2004, filed by Sri Satya Narayan Yadav, the preemptor who had sought reliefs therein interalia for quashing the said order dated 11.9.2004 with a consequential direction to DCLR to take further steps in terms of Section 16(3) of the Act as also to 16 take action against the contemnor opposite party for causing deliberate and wilful disobedience of the order affirmed by this Court inasmuch as it appeared to this Court that the Contemnor Opposite Party had passed the order in deliberate disobedience and disregard of the direction of this Court in C.W.J.C. No. 718/1996 arising out of the same proceeding. The contemnor opposite party had filed a show cause on 5th February, 2008 wherein apart from taking defence for not filing show cause reply in terms of the order dated 6.7.2005 by shifting the blame on his counsel, has also taken a plea that the contempt proceeding should be dropped because he had passed an order on 5.9.2005 for complying the order of the Court and thereafter had also executed sale deed in favour of Satya Narayan Yadav on 20.10.2005. It has been contended that as the grievance of the Writ Petitioner Satya Narayan Yadav stood redressed in view of his order dated 5.9.2005 by recalling his earlier order dated 11.9.2004 and directing Jayanti Devi to execute the sale deed on or before 18.9.2005 as also when she did not execute the sale deed, he had directed counsel for Satya Narayan Yadav to submit the draft copy of the sale deed and after such draft copy of the sale was submitted, he had given an opportunity to Jayanti Devi to file objection on or before 14.10.2005 and when such objection was not filed by 17 Jayanti Devi who remained absent, he had passed an order for execution of the sale deed on 17.10.2005 and thereafter the sale deed was executed by Sri Pawan Kumar, Assistant in the office of Deputy Collector Land Reforms who was authorized by the Contemnor Opposite Party to execute sale deed. The Contemnor Opposite Party has also annexed copy of such sale deed dated 20.10.2005 by way of Annexure-B to his show cause reply and has sought unqualified and unconditional apology for his acts of omission and commission which in his submission were not wilful and deliberate. This Court on perusal of the said show cause reply was not satisfied and the said show cause filed by the Contemnor Opposite Party was rejected by a reasoned order dated 8.2.2008 and had drawn a contempt proceeding directing him to file a show cause as to why he should not be punished for committing contempt of this Court. The order of this Court dated 8.2.2008 being relevant reads as follows:- “Heard counsel for the writ petitioner in CWJC no.13740/2004 as well as the SC II Ceiling and Sri Sarda Nand Mishra, Advocate appearing for the Contemnor Udai Kant Jha. By an order dated 22.1.2008 in CWJC no.13740/04 this court has directed for drawing a suo motu contempt proceeding against Respondent no.4 in view of the fact that 18 he had not complied the order of this court dated 6.7.05 passed in CWJC no.13740/04. On that date i.e. 22.1.2008 Sri Sardanand Mishra learned counsel appearing for respondent no.4 in the connected CWJC no.13740/04 had assured that he will file a show cause reply in the contempt matter as directed in the order dated 6.7.05. From the show cause which has been filed by respondent no.4, the sole opposite party of this contempt proceeding it is clear that he has offered no explanation as to why he had passed an order dated 11.9.04 in teeth of the direction given in CWJC no.718/96. From perusal of the show cause reply it further appears that he has taken the matter rather causally and his only explanation is that now when the impugned order dated 11.9.04 has been withdrawn by him, the matter should be allowed to lie at rest and this proceeding should be dropped. This court fails to appreciate such an attitude and consequently rejects the show cause filed by the contemnor. In such a situation, this court is further constrained to draw a contempt proceeding against Udai Kant Jha, respondent no.4 in the connected writ application i.e. CWJC no.13740/04. He may now file a show