II^^NN®" HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Contempt Case (c) No.60/2009 ^^ Petitioners Murlidhar bewangan <& others Vs Respondents Agnooram <& others POST FOR ORDERS ON 28th FEBRUARY. 2009 Sd/- Dhirendra Mishra Judge 28.02.2009 J^: 1— HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Contempt Gase (c) No. 60/2009 r^- Petitioners Vs Respondents 1. Murlidhar bewangan, aged about 38 years, S/o Choitan Singh bewangan. 2. Narayan Singh bewangan, aged about 33 years, S/o Chaitan Singh. S.Chaitan Singh, aged about 70 years, S/o Kanhiyalal. All R/o (^ewanganpara, bistt. Narayanpur. 1. Agnooram S/o Kanhiyatal 2. bayaram, S/o Kanhiyalal 3. Rooplal S/o Pyarelal bewangan, All by Caste Koshta, R/o bewnaganpara, bistt. Narayanpur. 4. Bhushan Dubey, Sub bivisional Officer, At Present post at Korba. Present: Mr. Parag Kotecha, Advocate for the petitioners. ORDER (Passed on 28.2.2009) Per bhirendra Mishra. J; 1. The petitioners have filed the instant petition for initiation of contempt proceedings against the respondents herein with the allegation that the respondents have willfully violated the judgment dated 5.5.2005 (Annexure P-3) passed by this Court in Second Appeal No.23 of 1989 whereby judgment <& decree dated 25.11.1988 passed by the lower appellate court was set aside and judgment <& decree dated 18.12.1982 passed in Civil Suit No.l5A/81 has been confirmed. 2. Grievance of the petitioners are that respondent No.l to 3 filed a civil suit against the petitioners for declaration that gift deed dated 16.1.1980 executed by Kanhaiyalal Dewangan in favour of petitioner No.l is void. However, the suit was dismissed as withdrawn and thereafter a fresh suit was filed by the above respondents and in that suit agart from other issues, Issue No.5 'whether the gift deed dated 16.1.1980 is void' was also framed and the above issue was answered as not proved by the court below vide Annexure P-1. However, the first appeat of the respondents was allowed by the learned Additional f^ ^ District Judge vide judgment dated 25.11.1988 (Annexure P-2) and gift deed executed in favour of petitioner No.l was declared invalid. The petitioners' second appeal was allowed by this Court vide judgment and decree dated 5.5.2008 (Annexure P-3) with a finding that both the courts below have recorded specific finding that respondents No.l to 3/ plaintiffs have failed to establish adverse possession over the suit land and thus, the lower appellate court erred in grantin9 decree of declaration of title in favour of respondent No.l to 3/plaintiffs. 3. After the judgment of this Court the petitioners applied for mutation and the Tehsildar, Narayanpur ,on the basis of judgment of this Court, vide order dated 8.10.2008 (Annexure P-4) mutated names of the petitioners in the land records in respect of the land in question. Respondents No.l to 3 preferred an appeal against the order of the Tehsildar before respondent No.4 herein who deliberately vide order dated 19.12.2008 (Annexure P-5) allowed the appeal without appreciating the findings of this Court and directed that names of respondents No.l to 3 be recorded in the revenue records. However, the Commissioner stayed the order passed by respondent No.4 in an appeal preferred by the petitioners herein. 4. Mr.Kotecha, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that order of mutation has been passed with an ulterior motive by respondent No.4 at the instance of respondent No.l to 3 in utter disregard of judgment <& decree passed by this Court just a day before his transfer. Respondent No.4 while exercising appellate jurisdiction under the C.G. Land Revenue Gode, 1959 (for short 'Code') has set aside the order of mutation passed in favour of petitioners with an observation that the suit of the respondents for declaration of title has been dismissed with a finding that the plaintiffs have failed to prove the gift deed dated 16.1.1980 executed by Kanhaiyalal as void. Gift deed has not been declared valid by the civil court. There is no declaration in favour of the petitioners that they acquired title over the disputed land on the basis of gift deed. ^ 5. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner. 6. It is not in dispute that the respondents' suit for the relief of dectaration was finally dismissed by the High Court. Respondent No.4- SbO while exercising the appellate jurisdiction under the Code has bonafidely interpreted that there is no decree in favour of the petitioners that they acquired title on the basis of gift deed dated 16.1.1980. The Tehsildar wrongly interpreting the judgment of this Court erroneously mutated the' disputed land in favour of the petitioners. The petitioners have already impugned the order of respondent No.4 by filing second appeal before the Commissioner and his order stands stayed. 7. It is settled law that proceedings for civil contempt cannot be predicted upon disobedience of the order or direction which provides scope for different reasonabte and rational interpretations. Where two views were possible as to the effect of the court order and the respondent acts on the basis of one of such views it cannot be said that he had disobeyed the order. In the instant case, the respondents No.l to 3 exercised their right of filing appeal against the order of mutation passed in favour of the petitioners on the basis of their interpretation of judgment of this Court and their arguments found favored by the respondent No.4 appellate authority and the same cannot be construed to be civil contempt for the purposes of Contempt of Courts Act. 8. For the aforesaid reasons, this Court is of the opinion that no ground exists for initiating contempt proceedings against the respondents, the petition has no merit, the same is liable to be dismissed and it is hereby dismissed. —— Dhirendra Mishra Judge Roshan/-